View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sat Sep 22, 2018 9:32 am




Reply to topic  [ 56 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
The Daily Mail ban 
Author Message
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 1089
Reply with quote
Hopefully, this could yet turn out to be a potential Wikipedia killer.

Editor Guy Macon was one of the people who led the charge to achieve the 'ban' on using the Daily Mail as a source. He's just reignited the issue in ways that could open him up to being sued, more of which near the bottom of this post. For now, some background.....

This ban was a joke of a decision, clearly motivated by the politics of Wikipedians like Macon, who hate the right wing popular press, not by issues of reliability or concern for living individuals. The fact the Wikipedians have stayed silent on the fabrications the 'discussion' contained, illustrates accuracy was not their concern. The fact the discussion contained numerous defamatory statements against living people, proves that was not their concern either.

Perhaps revealing the poor performance of the media in these changing times, where they put little effort into actually investigating how Wikipedia really works because there's no clicks in it, specifically how they happily ignore their own rules if it serves their innate biases and personal agendas, the best reporting of what really happened, can only be found from a Forbes Contributor.....

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2017/02/10/what-wikipedias-daily-mail-ban-tells-us-about-the-future-of-online-censorship/

Quote:
Strangely, a review of the comments advocating for a prohibition of the Mail yields not a single data-driven analysis performed in the course of this discussion. In fact, the “fact checking” stage of the prohibition is perhaps best summed up by the user who proposed the prohibition in the first place: “A list of reasons why would be enormous, it doesn't need reiterating, the paper is trash, pure and simple.”
.....
To put this into context - the absolute entirety of the body of evidence used to place a blanket prohibition on the Mail was that out of the billions of Internet users that come into contact with the platform’s content, 50 people said anecdotally that they disliked the newspaper for unspecified reasons.
I recommend the entire piece to readers, it is compelling in its exposure of the fucked up way the Wikipedians and the WMF handled this farce. On the odd occasion light does penetrate this darkness, the Wikipedians have been in denial about what really happened, right from the get go.

Even when the person who launched the debate later admitted he had lied to achieve his aims, and had primed the left wing newspaper The Guardian to run the story of the 'ban' immediately, which put the Mail completely on the back foot in terms of their right of reply, the Wikipedians did nothing to set aside the decision, not even to re-run it with strict adherence to Wikipedia's own conduct rules, which as written do actually prioritise data and reason over anecdote, emotion and basic deception, so as to ensure they had a bullet proof consensus.

To remind people, this is how the discussion initiator Hillbillyholiday gloated.....

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/wikipedia ... ree-press/

That's a reliable source, so the Wikipedian's refusal to add that to the Daily Mail article is of course, evidence of bias. One particularly egregious lie he told was this.....
Quote:
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)

IPSO does not regulate the Independent or the Guardian. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Even though his lie was immediately spotted by another Wikipedian, this evidently had no effect on the discussion, or the closing admin's deliberations. Later, while posting as "Smiley" on Wikipediocracy, he was even more candid in explaining this true motives.....

http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtop ... 53#p208853
Quote:
Smiley wrote:
Quote:
thekohser wrote:
...the effect of that ban has been what, exactly?
It damaged the Mail's reputation worldwide.
Quote:
thekohser wrote:
You fell for "Hillbillyholiday's" whole purpose of this -- to create drama.
Yeah, that too
Hilariously, having gloated about how the Mail couldn't find him so as to exact revenge, he crapped his pants when they only went and did just that.....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... genda.html

Unsurprisingly, he has since been blocked from Wikipedia several times, as an activist editor who has no respect for the site's own rules. This still hasn't led the Wikipedians to reflect on their decision to 'debate' his 'proposal', which singularly targeted the Mail, not tabloids in general, as if it was merely the neutral expression of concern for Wikipedia's integrity, and not an attempt to pursue his personal agenda through the press, using Wikipedia and the Wikipedians as merely useful idiots in an epic episode of trolling.

Perhaps the best evidence that the ban had nothing to do with reliability, is that since the ban came into effect, the Wikipedians have done virtually nothing to remove the existing instances of use of the Mail as a reference in Wikipedia articles. It numbers in the thousands, making Wikipedia the biggest source of incoming links the paper has.

At the time of the ban, over a year ago now, this search returned around 4,500 hits, and now it is only down to 4,100.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&profile=default&fulltext=1&search=dailymail.co.uk+OR+dailymail.com

The latest incident in this ongoing saga provides yet more proof as to the intent of the Wikipedians who drove this ban to fruition. Guy Macon has ridiculously tried to force his own interpretations of the reasons for the ban, into the Mail's own Wikipedia article.

His first attempt.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daily_Mail&diff=next&oldid=821808540

After being rebuffed, an attempt to add it in a slightly different way.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =827561467

And when that was opposed, a second attempt to insert his original wording......

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =827735196

It wouldn't be hard for a decent lawyer to establish Guy Macon's motives, and link them to the defamatory statements now being published on Wikipedia in their article about the Daily Mail. It averages over 2,000 page views a day, which is important in terms of calculating potential damages.

Macon recently made this statement on the very prominent venue that is Jimmy Wales' talk page.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=819799503

It essentially repeats the contents of his attempted change to the article as his own view, and all it offers up as a source for these defamatory statements, are the words of a disgruntled ex-employee of the Mail.

Indeed, his very next edit was to propose his opinions be added to the article......

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daily_Mail&diff=prev&oldid=819801865

That then led to the first insertion above.

If the Mail chose to unleash the dogs of war against Macon for these edits, it's hard to see how the WMF, in particularly Jimmy Wales, could reasonably claim to not be co-defendants, given their various statements in the wake of the ban. Indeed, if they refused, if all they did was offer Guy some money for his legal defence on the basis he's ultimately legally liable, I can see that causing uproar among the Wikipediots, the vast majority clearly believing that trashing the Mail is a perfectly good use of Wikipedia.


Sat Mar 03, 2018 5:07 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 1089
Reply with quote
Farcical

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Should_an_RfC_be_"closed"_by_the_person_who_started_it?

Multiple reverts to the article now.


Sat Mar 03, 2018 11:00 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 4:04 pm
Posts: 14
Reply with quote
There may be another political angle here. The Daily Mail has been one of the few sources to report on the influence of the Common Purpose group run by Julia Middleton and Stephen Heintz of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. The same organization is known in the United States as Demos. They once tried to take over the UK media by running a campaign claiming that the media has such problems that the government must institute an oversight board that they would run.

Leveson Inquiry has momentous implications for free speech

This non-profit organisation is like the Left's very own old boy network

So we have a group with a demonstrated interest in controlling the media, and we have Wikipedia taking the unusual step of singling out and banning the one news outlet with the most thorough coverage of their activities. It seems like a fortuitous coincidence for this group.

They can also be linked to, you can probably guess.


Sat Mar 03, 2018 3:21 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 1089
Reply with quote
Drmies restoring the "stable version".

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daily_Mail&diff=next&oldid=828638831

Unsurprisingly, his interpretation of the BRD cycle means that the content added by Guy Macon is the stable version because it lasted a whole month, even through the 'D' held so far about the 'B' act to remove it has shown landslide opposition to it. Literally the only person other than Guy who supports it in the 'D', is of course, Drmies.

Blurring the lines between actions taken as an editor and that of an admin, in the inevitable 3RR report filed by Guy to prevent the inevitable, sees Admin NeilN describing Drmies' revert as "putting his foot down".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:L.R._Wormwood_reported_by_User:Guy_Macon_(Result:_No_violation)

Rather ridiculously, this debate is being forced to run for the entire thirty days, as if WP:SNOW isn't an actual thing, and hence Macon's bullshit "summary" will remain in the article for all that time, because of this intervention....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive977#Should_an_RfC_be_"closed"_by_the_person_who_started_it?

It's pretty clear the name of the game here is to keep defamatory content about the Daily Mail (accusations sourced only to a random Wikipediot who claims to be summarising other random Wikipediots but is clearly only advancing his own reasons) in the Wikipedia article on the Daily Mail for as long as humanly possible, using every trick in the Wikipedia rules-lawyer book.


Mon Mar 05, 2018 3:26 am
Profile
Psyop
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 5:56 pm
Posts: 997
Reply with quote
now THIS is a good and useful thread.

In spite of all that, Wikipedians have NOT been systematically removing Daily Mail links since the squawk started in March 2017. I ran the external-links search at that time and found 52,578 links to dailymail.co.uk. Ran the test again today and found 52,500 links. Still failing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... mail.co.uk


Tue Mar 06, 2018 1:35 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 6:01 pm
Posts: 167
Reply with quote
Yeah, I tried sending CN a message back when I saw Bullrangifer was trying to get it officially blacklisted, but it looks like that idea's been nixed. ( § )

That's how I learned that the Wikipediocratic static had won an exchange.


Tue Mar 06, 2018 2:34 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 1089
Reply with quote
Blacklisting would be a hilarious own goal, but sadly yes, despite it being clear this would be the most efficient way to implement the claimed consensus, whitelisting the few times an actual link would be necessary, this is evidently not something they feel comfortable doing. Plus they've already seemingly realised the huge number of extant links would make it impossible to do right now anyway.

It says a lot that it's been a year since they said they wanted a mere automatic warning for any new attempts to use the DM, and it still hasn't happened. All those people who like to blame the incompetents in the WMF for Wikipedia's failings, are obviously not watching how the Wikipediots manage stuff like this, stuff which is all 100% within their control and is indeed especially reserved to them as an editorial decision.


Tue Mar 06, 2018 3:54 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 1089
Reply with quote
Trolly McTrollface (Hillbillyholiday) isn't even trying to hide what he did now.....
Quote:
Of course, the idea of using Wikipedia to traduce their good name (again) is rather appealing
He does however decline Guy Macon's invitation to become the lone voice supporting his edit to the DM article. And he's still whining about the fact that his internet escapades into troll country had some nasty real life consequences. His poor Mum. I'm sure it really happened, and he really didn't just make it all up. He wouldn't make things up just to make the Daily Mail look bad...... Hilariously, Guy Macon seems desperate to be given the star treatment too.


Tue Mar 13, 2018 12:46 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 1089
Reply with quote
h/t Sashi for leading me to this find.

https://lauravanessanunes.com
Quote:
On 16 November 2014 Laura Vanessa Nunes fell to her death from the At the Top Sky observation deck on the 148th floor of the Burj Khalifa. Her death was covered up by the Government of Dubai. On 18 May 2015, Rob Davies with the Daily Mail exposed the government of Dubai and the Emaar Property Group's best kept secret: the death by suicide of Laura from the Burj Khalifa. It was promptly denied by General Khalil Ebrahim Al Mansouri, Assistant to the Dubai Police Chief for Criminal Investigation Affairs, who said that the 39-year-old woman jumped out of her 14th-floor Jumeirah Lake Towers (JLT) apartment. Laura had been staying in 309 Abidos Hotel Apartments, Dubailand. On 16 November 2017, the third anniversary of Laura's death, Mark Saunokonoko of 9News Australia, published the official confirmation of the location of Laura's death by Luis Camara of the Portuguese Consulate in Abu Dhabi. He received the information from the Dubai Police: Laura fell to her death from the 148th floor of the Burj Khalifa.
Unsurprisingly, the story of how this information was added to and modified on Wikipedia paints a sometimes sad sometimes ridiculous picture, one which really shouldn't reassure anyone they have the first clue what they're doing (isn't it fun how often practical examples of how Wikipedia works show that, well, it doesn't). I won't bore people with the details - you should be able to find it yourself if you care enough to look (journalists obviously don't).

Arguably, what they eventually settled on doesn't even really meet their idea of good quality writing/sourcing, such as it was defined even before the Mail ban.......
Quote:
The Daily Mail reported that on 16 November 2014, Laura Vanessa Nunes, a Portuguese national who was in Dubai on a tourist visa, fell to her death from Burj Khalifa's "At the Top" observation deck on the 148th floor.[131] However, on 18 May 2015, Dubai police disputed the report made by the Daily Mail on this incident and said that this incident took place in Jumeirah Lakes Towers.[132] A Dubai Coroner's report stated Laura's body was found on the third floor of the Burj Khalifa[133]. Emails obtained under the Freedom of Information act from Portugal's embassy in the UAE also confirmed that Laura Nunes had committed suicide from the 148th floor of the Burj Khalifa. [134]
References 131 to 134 are....

* Heartbroken woman leaps to her death from the 148th floor of the Burj Khalifa – the world's tallest building – after relationship turns sour". Daily Mail. 18 May 2015. Retrieved 28 August 2015.

* "No suicide at Burj Khalifa say Dubai Police". Gulf News. 18 May 2015. Retrieved 28 August 2015.

* Perring, Rebecca (19 May 2015). "Is Dubai trying to cover-up woman's death from top of world's tallest building?". (Daily Express)

* Saunokonoko, Mark (16 November 2017). "How rich Gulf emirate Dubai covered up woman's suicide from top of Burj Khalifa". Nine News Australia

Now I've posted about it here, post-'ban', undoubtedly some raving Mail hating asshole is going to completely rewrite this paragaph and so rewrite history using only 'reliable' sources, assuming they don't try to remove it completely. In the process they'll scrub all evidence from Wikipedia that it was the Mail's journalism that had any part in exposing this cover up. They'll of course leave out the rather obvious fact that their so called reliable sources only reported on it after the Mail's expose led the Dubai government to issued their denials, dutifully carried by Gulf News et al.


Thu Mar 15, 2018 5:00 am
Profile
Modsquad
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2017 8:11 am
Posts: 130
Reply with quote
CrowsNest wrote:


It's unbelievable the three defamatory and unsourced paragraphs Drmies (Michel Aaij of the University of Montgomery, Alabama) reinserted there. Such as the sentence "The Daily Mail regularly fabricates entire stories."

The most galling thing I've seen this entity (he identifies as "trisexual" the last time I looked at his userpage) do is delete large portions of articles. When content editors try to respond by rushing in to repair the damage, he walks away smirking and taking credit for it.

_________________
I am "Modsquad" here, and participate, but I don't want you to think we can't have an angry argument.


Fri Mar 16, 2018 3:55 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 56 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group ColorizeIt.
Designed by ST Software.