Has Wikipedia ever republished fake news from the Daily Mail?

Because no one else is doing it--not even the media.
Post Reply
User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 717
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 113 times

Has Wikipedia ever republished fake news from the Daily Mail?

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Fri Jun 25, 2021 6:41 pm

When Guy Macon meets reality, the results are usually hilarious.

For example, when he asked the Wikipedia community whether he could be trusted to be an Administrator, the community, which at this stage of their life(death)cycle is happily waving anyone with a heartbeat through, told Guy Macon in no uncertain terms, to go fuck himself. Or they would have, had he not faked a heart attack in order to avoid what would have been an embarrassingly one sided rejection.

His latest wheeze is to try and get this ridiculous Wikipedia Daily Mail ban endorsed by an actual journalist. One that actually bothers to look into it, the original reporting having done nothing but repeat the press release.

It appears he has come up against a problem. The newsroom apparently had some very pertinent questions.......

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... Daily_Mail
think around here we need a little more info on why English Wikipedia made this decision. Were there any particular precipitating events? Can you give some examples of times when Daily Mail links were used that pointed to bum info? I think setting up the problem a little more clearly will help!'Do you by chance know of any examples that precipitated the 2017 RfC? It's hard because I see a number of examples of Daily Mail posting incorrect news stories, but it's hard to show how that damaging to Wikipedia. I would welcome any advice or suggestions you might have!"
That has apparently stumped Macon, since he doesn't have any actual examples of the Mail being used as a source actually having harmed Wikipedia. And why would he? His opinions of the Mail are formed solely from his hateful prejudice. His burning desire to see every Daily Mail journalist out of a job.

Facts don't matter to Macon. Which is perfectly acceptable when he sticks to his lane - the Wikipedia universe.

So, I leave it to the floor. If you are aware of any examples of the Mail's alleged unreliability actually affecting Wikipedia's alleged reliability, let the world know.

The more examples the better, since at last count, before David Gerard started his single handed masturbation session, tearing through Wikipedia to remove every use of the Mail before anyone can revisit the logic of the ban, there were something like 80,0000 uses of it as a source. Or was it 8,000? I don't recall now.

But it hardly matters. Because if you can find only one error, that would still mean that for Wikipedia's purposes, the Mail was unreliable a whopping 7,999 times out of 8,000. Pretty good, no? Don't even have to convert that to a percentage, do I? But I will, because it's fucking embarrassing.

0.0125%

In other words, NOT REMOTELY COMPARABLE TO A WIKIPEDIA INVENTED CLAIM LIKE....

"The Daily Mail is generally unreliable"

Now perhaps people are seeing why, even though they came up with cherry picked and often biased examples of unreliability in that Mail debate, there were so few, they very quickly started to get repetitive, and very few of them were unique to the Mail, having fooled other papers too.

So under their doctrine of "if it was in another paper, use that instead", the error would have still found its way into Wikiepdia.

The Mail is the paper that typically exposes when other papers have been fooled. And as we learned most recently, regarding a historical report, even when the BBC has covered up their own scandals. Wikipedia wouldn't report that. Then or now. Happy to assume they made it up, with zero evidence.

Sooner or later, the world will understand that these people were motivated only by politics. By predljudice and hate, really, ironically. Because they sure as shit never showed they have the first idea about how the media works. And so by extension, how you judge the reliability of a newspaper.

The Mail carries the most medical reports of UK newspapers, and the highest percentage of reports that are based on about robust, settled science type journals. That comes from actual research into the media.

It contradicts the widely held prejudices of the Wikishits, because they're not interested in the facts. When it comes to using their platform to exact some kind of jealous revenge against the hugely succesful Daily Mail, they're all about saying things that, to serious people like me, and no doubt to journalists and academics too, look like they were clearly pulled directly from their anuses.

All this would be public knowledge on Wikipedia, usable by these journalists, if it weren't for that cock Hemenchuia. If you're wondering why he doesn't want the world to know these things, you can ask him at Wikipediocracy. That's where people like him hang out.

Post Reply