Let's wind the clock back to the hilarious time when Wikipedia considered InfoWars more reliable than the Daily Mail

Because no one else is doing it--not even the media.
Post Reply
User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Critic
Posts: 394
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 45 times

Let's wind the clock back to the hilarious time when Wikipedia considered InfoWars more reliable than the Daily Mail

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Fri Jul 30, 2021 7:24 pm

No surprise to see Guy Macon was the man behind this particular bit of insanity. You can find lunatic fringe type shit like this smeared all over Wikipedia. Hard to argue it didn't have an effect when the time came to have a serious debate.
Even using The Daily Mail as a source about itself, something that we allow even on unreliable sites like InfoWars.com, should not be allowed in the case of The Daily Mail. The claim "Alex Jones founded Infowars" can be cited with a link to Infowars making that claim, on the reasonable assumption that they are not lying about themselves. The claim "The Daily Mail is owned by the Daily Mail and General Trust and published in London" cannot be supported in the same way -- with a link to The daily Mail saying that -- because The Daily mail lies about everything and plagiarizes everything and we are not allowed to guess whether or not any one particular claim is a lie or is plagiarism. If you can find the claim in another source, use that other source. If the claim is found only in The Daily Mail, don't make the claim on wikipedia. We have no way of knowing that it is true. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Looks even more ridiculous in hindsight, after the surprising end to Wikipedia's war against the Mail forced them to revisit why they hadn't also banned the likes of InfoWars, and belatedly, saw them make status of InfoWars and the Mail equal.

The fact that the Wikishits probably still secretly think, on some level, that Alex Jones is probably more trustworthy than the Editor-in-Chief of the Mail, tells you everything you need to know about what this bullshit ban was all about.

If I had to guess, they think that a crazy bastard who wants a crazy bastard to be US President, and who is unconstrained by any kind of legal framework (because America), is somehow less motivated to lie, than a historic mainstream newspaper incorporated in Britain, whose motives might be as benign as making a profit.

The fact that Guy Macon slipped up here, and revealed that the aim was not just to obtain a finding that the Mail is unreliable just like InfoWars, it was to obtain an even worse classification, says it all.

We can only guess what that classification is. In Guy Macon's infamous words though, the Mail is an evil that can only be killed by fire, apparently. Perhaps he would even celebrate if the journalists and their families burned in the inferno too. Harsh? You're wondering, aren't you?

For that alone, I suspect it involves some religious level shit. Because for all their obvious nonsense about how they're biased toward science and the analytical method, his lunatic fringe conduct as he worked toward bringing about the Daily Mail ban, for this was by no means an exception, showed rather clearly, that when it really matters, when it's a matter he really cares about, Guy Macon is all about the zealotry.

Which is hardly a shock. Wikipedia is a cult, after all. Crazy is what they do.

Buying into this shit, all of it, is the price of admission. Don't believe me? Try being a Wikipedia editor who queries whether DAILYMAIL really was an exercise in sage, sober analysis, and see how long you last. These people are for real, legit, cult bastards.

And as we know, fire is pretty effective on cults.

:flamingbanana:

User avatar
sashi
Sucks Critic
Posts: 318
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2017 2:01 am
Has thanked: 27 times
Been thanked: 16 times

Re: Let's wind the clock back to the hilarious time when Wikipedia considered InfoWars more reliable than the Daily Mail

Post by sashi » Fri Jul 30, 2021 11:11 pm

Maybe next David Gerard will focus on fr.wp's 3,426 links to dailymail.co.uk.

Since there's only 4 links to infowars.com you even see the descriptor from WikiData pop up at the bottom of the screen when you search for them.

Looking three years back to late July 2018 ( § ), the DM outnumbered IW on en.wp 27336 to 18.

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 2685
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Has thanked: 237 times
Been thanked: 482 times

Re: Let's wind the clock back to the hilarious time when Wikipedia considered InfoWars more reliable than the Daily Mail

Post by ericbarbour » Sat Jul 31, 2021 7:45 am

sashi wrote:
Fri Jul 30, 2021 11:11 pm
Maybe next David Gerard will focus on fr.wp's 3,426 links to dailymail.co.uk.
Now that you've pointed it out, he MIGHT try to talk an fr-WP admin into doing something. Doubtful. If Gerard can't read it, it doesn't exist.
-----
As a reminder: Why Wikipedia Will Fail, 2015

User avatar
Dr Mario
Sucks
Posts: 25
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2020 12:54 pm
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 10 times

Re: Let's wind the clock back to the hilarious time when Wikipedia considered InfoWars more reliable than the Daily Mail

Post by Dr Mario » Thu Aug 19, 2021 3:38 pm

My good, no wonder wikipedia sucks if they cannot regonize that infowars is concpiracy luncy not grounded in any reality, while Daily fail is your typical british tabloid which lies if it suits them.

User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Critic
Posts: 394
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 45 times

Re: Let's wind the clock back to the hilarious time when Wikipedia considered InfoWars more reliable than the Daily Mail

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Thu Aug 19, 2021 5:59 pm

Dr Mario wrote:
Thu Aug 19, 2021 3:38 pm
Daily fail is your typical british tabloid which lies if it suits them.
In a word, bollocks.

It suited The Sun to lie about Liverpool fans at Hillsborough.

It suited The Mirror to pubish a faked front page picture of alleged British Army war crimes.

They are tabloids. You can tell by the red masthead. Hence the derogatory term, redtop.

If you're aware of a similar scandal involving the Mail, by all means, illuminate the world. If you don't have an equivalent example, then kindly shut your hole.

Oh, and let's have it right. Even the The Guardian lies when it suits. Traingate was a lie. Not telling people Jimmy Wales was a Guardian Board Member when they carried the scoop of Wikipedia's Daily Mail ban, was a lie by omission. Because people had a right to know that Jimmy has previously made extremely libellous statements about the Mail, and his opinion of the paper was cited as the reason for the ban proposal, and that person was in contact with a Guardian journalist. What was discussed? Top secret.

People had a right to know that the news got to The Guardian and spread around the world before the Mail had had a chance to even read the outcome, let alone have their right of reply, wasn't exactly an accident. Dirty.

Never forget. Jimmy Wales offered to assist that person when he claimed he was being harassed by the Mail. Does he stand by that offer, now he knows that person was a racist sexual deviant, who eventually had to be banned by the Wikipedia community because his abuses of basic Wikipedia policy were ultimately just that obvious and indefensible (but who were as oblivious to the fact the bloke was a racist deviant, as Jimmy).

Post Reply