How ironic that it's The Guardian that debunks some of Wikipedia's most cherished Daily Mail myths

Because no one else is doing it--not even the media.
Post Reply
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 714
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 110 times

How ironic that it's The Guardian that debunks some of Wikipedia's most cherished Daily Mail myths

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Thu Nov 18, 2021 2:49 pm

Those who followed the Daily Mail ban debacle are well aware that it was a bias fueled shit show from start to finish. As you would expect, given the morals of the piece of shit which kicked it all off, Hillbillyholiday. You can find him in his new job as Moderator of Wikipediocracy, naturally. Scum knows scum.

The themes were clear. The Mail was a apparently celebrity obsessed click bait factory and Mail editor Paul Dacre was the devil incarnate.

The wikishits clealry had no clue, and no care, that the "Mail" is actually three distinct things, a weekly paper, a Sunday paper, and MailOnline, all run independently, owned by a media group that also owned other UK newspapers.

Which was surprising, since the theory goes that to argue a source is unreliable for Wikipedia, you must be able to identify the cause, be that, market, ownership, editor, journalists, or a logical combination of them all.

It doesn't follow, for example, that if the cause of "deliberately fabricated stories" is only Dacre, editor only of the weekly paper, that the Sunday edition or MailOnline would be similarly affected. Conversely, if its the owners who find such things profitable, why does it not affect their other titles? Other things similarly seemed odd. How, exactly, given their independence, would the MailOnline "sidebar of shame" even remotely affect the reliability of a Daily Mail column written by a respected commentator?

Wikishits were almost proud of their ignorance. Revelled it. Clearly aware and taking full advantage of the fact Wikipedia is a cult, and so, if they wanted to ban the Mail for political reasons and claim it was about reliability, nothing could stop them.

Only when it was finally realised they had royally fucked up by not even realising the two paper editions are entirely separate and this does have a material affect on their ban, the process to add the Sunday edition to the ban was a mere formality, because hey, they're just the same, right? Even though they're different.

It was quite the party. The Guardian were invited, a necessary guest to legitimise this bullshit. I shit you not, the mere act of the Guardian reporting "Wikipedia editors rule the Mail is generally unreliable", became, in the Wikipedia editorial process, "The Mail is generally unreliable".

I swear to God, they did this.

You can't stop them doing this. It's a cult. They have a wide range of measures designed specifically to stop you saying, hey, that's wrong, and editing Wikipedia back to a reality based version of events, in the interests of accuracy and neutrality.

At the very highest levels, Wikipedia have quite implausibly denied that their "trusted" users have engaged in gaslighting and privacy invasion and other very familiar games, to prevent these things from even coming to light on Wikipedia, much less debated properly. And Wikipediocracy have naturally, assisted them in every way.

Some might say this is a good reason to just kill Wikipedia editors wherever you find them. I couldn't possible endorse such a view. But I am at a loss, given Wikipedia's legal status, what else a concerned citizen is meant to do about such things.

So imagine my amusement when learning many of these cleary false and intentionally misleading Wikipedia derived myths about the Mail that got such a wide airing in the ban debate as the font of logic and reason, have now been debunked by The Guardian.

Ironically, because, as they are reporting, the Mail is only now becoming the thing they banned it for. The three entities are merging. But unfortunately for the wikishits, this is all happening after Dacre has left.

And sadly for the wikishkts, not as a result of declining fortunes. Things in the Mail's garden are quite rosy indeed, bucking industry trends as always, their reputation and popularity entirely unaffected by Wikipedia's ban. Perhaps if they hadn't made it so obvious what that ban was all about, they might have had a better chance of achieving their goals. ... daily-mail
Geordie Greig has been ousted as editor of the Daily Mail after just three years in the job, in a move that could change the recently hostile relationship between the rightwing newspaper and Downing Street.


Until now the highly profitable Daily Mail print edition, which is the UK’s biggest selling newspaper and retains substantial political influence, had continued to operate almost entirely independently from the more celebrity-focused MailOnline website.

This relatively strict separation is now expected to change, although a full merger between the outlets is not on the cards at this stage.


Staff at the Daily Mail suggested Greig was caught off-guard by Monday’s decision to promote Richard Caccappolo – an American media executive based in New York – to become chief executive of the company’s media business.

Caccappolo has worked with the MailOnline editor, Martin Clarke, to build the website into a global success story.


Greig will be replaced by the Mail on Sunday editor, Ted Verity, who will have oversight of both titles, hinting that the sister newspapers could increasingly operate as a combined operation.

Until now they have had separate staff and editorial agendas but there is no plan to appoint a replacement full-time Sunday editor.


The announcement of Greig’s departure was made by Lord Rothermere, the controlling shareholder of the Daily Mail’s parent company. He is in the process of delisting the business from the stock market and taking it back into private ownership as part of a complicated series of financial transactions which will result in a slimmed-down media business which will also own titles including the UK edition of the Metro and the i newspaper.

It comes just days after the Guardian revealed that Greig’s predecessor Paul Dacre, a leading candidate for the job of Ofcom chair, had himself departed the company after more than 40 years with the business.
Oh, and quite clearly, given the source here, the idea that that the Mail, before or after this merging, will still ever really resemble the National Enquirer, to recall one of the most favourite myths of the wikishits, is, as ever, {citation needed}.


Post Reply