The Daily Mail, good enough for UK's Joe Biden, not good enough for Wikipedia. What's that about, as if we can't guess.

Because no one else is doing it--not even the media.
Post Reply
User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Fan
Posts: 185
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 31 times

The Daily Mail, good enough for UK's Joe Biden, not good enough for Wikipedia. What's that about, as if we can't guess.

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Wed Apr 28, 2021 12:27 pm

Imagine my smile, when, and this is hardly unusual, I heard the following broadcast live on national radio today, these words of the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, taking part in an important element of our democracy, the weekly Prime Ministers Questions. These were, verbatim, his very first line, of his very first question....

https://mobile.twitter.com/SkyNews/stat ... s-12289195
It was reported this week, including in the Daily Mail, the BBC, and ITV, backed up by numerous sources, that the Prime Minsiter said......
What an odd thing to have heard, if it were remotely true, in the words of many Wikipedia editors and the wankers at Wikipediocracy, that the Daily Mail is allegedly the UK equivalent of Fox News, the National Enquirer, or even Breitbart. Both in terms of accuracy, bias, and general standing as a newspaper of record or influence. The other two named entities, of course, being state chartered and primarily TV based media entities.

But it is, of course, not remotely true.

The Daily Mail has every right to be treated by Wikipedia as what it is. A reliable, mass market properly regulated newspaper, important for its role and significance in forming and reflecting right wing opinion in the UK. It was mentioned here precisely because this is what it is. And because, in matters that Wikipedia would want to use it for, rather than celebrity gossip, its processes and procedures are no different to that seen in the newsrooms of the BBC or ITV. If their report is wrong, it will be for the same reasons it fooled the BBC or ITV. If it is right, it is significant that the editor of the Mail chose to report it, and on the eve of multiple elections here in the UK no less.

It's is known that Americans like to revel in their ignorance of the wider world and how other nation's press and democracy actually works, and so perhaps they really don't appreciate the lies they were told by UK based Wikipedia editors like Micheal Cockram, Guy Chapman and David Gerard, as they orchestrated the effort to ban the Mail allegedly for reasons of accuracy, rather than the more obvious reason, political bias.

Well, you dumb bastards, here's your proof. Because you can say what you want about the Mail, and you fucking well do, don't you, exercising your constitutional and Wikipedia protected right to be ignorant cunts. But I and a good many other right minded Brits, raised and educated properly, will listen and be persuaded by your mental faculties and purity of heart, only if and when you can find us an example of when the reporting of Fox News, National Enquirer, or Breitbart have ever been referred to this way by Joe Biden, as he held the President Donald Trump directly and personally accountable in Congress, if that is even a part of your laughable "democracy".

No doubt you can use media sources like CNN and newspaper of high repute being cited in this way, but can you find what you have often claimed, are the American equivalents of the Mail, being so used?

You will not find it. Nor will you find the guts to admit you cannot find it, if your past actions are anything to go by.

This is why people like me will shed not one tear, if harm comes to you as a result of you thinking you can actually get away with this shit.

There will be a correction. If that cannot be done on Wikipedia, it will be done through other means.

Pointing out that Jimmy Wales wrongly believes Wikipedia editors would allow the words of the UK Prime Minsiter to be included on Wikipedia if they come from an exclusive interview with the Mail, is just the start.

Post Reply