View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sat Nov 16, 2019 8:55 pm




Reply to topic  [ 120 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
The Daily Mail ban 
Author Message
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 6:01 pm
Posts: 268
Reply with quote
The Foundation has published the notification they received from Google that the Daily Mail entry on en.wp had been removed from Google searches as a result of a complaint.

Google, in a form letter to en.wp, wrote:
Due to a request under the data protection law in Europe, Google can no longer show one or more pages from your site in Google Search results.

source


Sat Jun 15, 2019 5:17 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 8:20 am
Posts: 3705
Reply with quote
But why don't they just take a few pirate flag and don't they start a march to the Europarlement? Or why don't they start the Free Daily Mail Advocating Group Brussels?
For sure they can get those flags for a fair price from the Brussels Pirate Party department now they don't need them anymore, and they get now again 60 K to buy other toys from uncle WMF.

Just fill the streets of the capitals of Europe with people, raise the pirate flags, shout liberate the Daily Mail, a twitter shit storm, and any problem with European regulations is solved.

_________________
Mijn blog. (In Dutch) of kom eens gezellig bij de Kolonel langs in Eerbeek.
En kijk eens hier, het "Verboden" lijstje van door mij aangemaakte artiklen.

. Image
.Winner of
The SanBan


Sat Jun 15, 2019 5:50 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 6:01 pm
Posts: 268
Reply with quote
Just for the record, it was a former WMF Nederlands and WMF Audit board member who posted that link to my watchlist the Daily Mail entry's talk page.


Sat Jun 15, 2019 5:57 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 8:20 am
Posts: 3705
Reply with quote
Ah, Ad. Well, they should ask him advice, Ad is a Pirate expert.

It seems to be weird if you enter the chapter headquarters on the Mariaplaats in Utrecht. Everywhere you find stroopwafels, some remains are mouldy, everywhere are pirate flags at the wall, and every Saturday they have a meeting where they do pirate games with a patch for one eye.
That is the place where the Daily Mail should go for advice. There you find the legal experts about European regulations. And mabye you even meet Rooomaaainnneee =>>Wikimedia.

_________________
Mijn blog. (In Dutch) of kom eens gezellig bij de Kolonel langs in Eerbeek.
En kijk eens hier, het "Verboden" lijstje van door mij aangemaakte artiklen.

. Image
.Winner of
The SanBan


Sat Jun 15, 2019 6:32 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4447
Reply with quote
sashi wrote:
The Foundation has published the notification they received from Google that the Daily Mail entry on en.wp had been removed from Google searches as a result of a complaint.

Google, in a form letter to en.wp, wrote:
Due to a request under the data protection law in Europe, Google can no longer show one or more pages from your site in Google Search results.

source
Curious. I mean, you'd hope it was because the article is a horrendous hatchet job and the Mail complained, but more likely one of the people named in the controversies has filed under the right to be forgotten.

As usual, nobody inside the cult has noticed. Another piece of proof that their interest in the Mail began and ended at the PR generated by their bullshit ban.

Can you imagine if the likes of Peter Hitchins realised they can directly request the WMF to ban Guy Chapman for defamation and harassment....might have to do my civic duty and inform him of the new arrangements. :ugeek:


Sat Jun 15, 2019 10:49 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 8:20 am
Posts: 3705
Reply with quote
Those European laws and regulation are a slow working poison, a kind of Roundup what will kill Wikipedia complete at the end.
The inside the cult absolute has noticed this kind of things, Crow, but they just ignore it. They wave a bit with there pirate flags to comfort the cult, and the cult is willing to believe them, and that is the status quo.

I am convinced deep inside Wikipedia there are people who know they are playing a extreem risky game what only can end up in a catastrofe, but they simple don't have a solution. And to be honest neither I do have any solution, because there is simple no other solution than waiting till the whole shit sinks in the sea. There is no solution, because fixing Wikipedia is simple impossible. And that is the reality we are living in and the WMF Board can have as many meetings as they want, but they will every time come to this same conclusion as I do.

Wikipedia is the ultimate trap, I was just in my garden and thanking the lord I am not locked up in this Hotel California. Because to me it seems a nightmare at the moment.
Just count your blessings you are not a part of this immense piramide scheme, Crow.

_________________
Mijn blog. (In Dutch) of kom eens gezellig bij de Kolonel langs in Eerbeek.
En kijk eens hier, het "Verboden" lijstje van door mij aangemaakte artiklen.

. Image
.Winner of
The SanBan


Sat Jun 15, 2019 12:33 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4447
Reply with quote
Turns out the renowned Daily Mail hater, the Wikipedia Administrator named "John", actually retired in May, although he'd basically checked out way back in September 2018.

I thought the Mail journalists who hopefully read this thread would get a laugh out of the fact he claimed he was leaving because Wikipedia no longer values "good writing" or the "Featured Article" process (their internal quality metric for their best work). This is fake news at its best - with the number of FAs on Wikipedia looking like it will never breach 0.5% of all articles, it has to be said anyone in the last decade who was under the impression Wikipedia was all about about FAs, had a screw loose.

Good writing has of course never been a feature of Wikipedia at all - studies have shown for example that science articles are pitched at an undergraduate reading level. Why? Because Wikipedia is basically written by students (a paradox since it is mainly also read by students). Students are dumb, certainly those that use Wikipedia. Even the brightest aren't skilled writers, so it is no surprise that as they scraped and dumped the contents of their textbooks into Wikipedia, they lacked the skill to dumb it down for the target audience of Wikipedia - the general population.

It might also amuse that John's last act was to try to remove something from a Wikipedia biography that was sourced to the Daily Mirror, even though the author was the subject of the biography. He rightly failed, because unlike the ridiculous ban on the Mail, it isn't yet assumed that a regular feature of UK tabloid articles is letting a celebrity write a column, then changing their words without telling them.

John was a famous adherent to the mantra (perhaps he even invented it?), if it is in the Mail and it is worth using, it will appear in other reliable sources. We of course learned long ago what this really meant - if something is in the Mail only (usually because they have the power to secure exclusives by the bucket load, and have a large stable of exclusive columnists, many being eminent experts in their field), then by definition it is not worth mentioning in Wikipedia. The Wikipediots swallowed it like the 1984 style bullshit it always was. It is also the reason so much of the content on Wikipedia that is the product of Mail exclusives, is sourced to other titles, even though they literally say, "According to the Maill......" .

Anyway, all those people who remember John after similar battles, have at it. With his stubborn ass gone, you are free to put your perfectly llegitimate content back into Wikipedia. Just not if it came from the Mail. Because, well, you know. :roll:


Thu Jun 20, 2019 12:01 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:22 pm
Posts: 292
Reply with quote
sashi wrote:
The Foundation has published the notification they received from Google that the Daily Mail entry on en.wp had been removed from Google searches as a result of a complaint.

Google, in a form letter to en.wp, wrote:
Due to a request under the data protection law in Europe, Google can no longer show one or more pages from your site in Google Search results.

source

That notice should be read carefully. It is possible to find the actual complaints, at least it used to be. Secondly, it is easy to test what names were involved, it was very unlikely to be "Daily Mail." This notice would only affect searches from within the EU, my guess, so to test this, if you are not in the EU, find an open proxy in the EU and do searches on names in the article to find what is suppressed. If I thought it worth the effort, I'd do it. But I don't think that. Someone else might. This might even have come from a transient edit, though that is less likely. And if the name is removed and, say, put up here and in many other places, it is possible to bypass such a ban. But if the information is defamatory, I'd be very careful! If it is fact it is not defamation in most places, and in the remaining places, if malice and gross negligence are not involved, it would be lawful.


Sun Jun 23, 2019 7:59 am
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:22 pm
Posts: 292
Reply with quote
Graaf Statler wrote:
[. . .] if you enter the chapter headquarters on the Mariaplaats in Utrecht. Everywhere you find stroopwafels, some remains are mouldy, [. . .]

Now we understand the outreach to involve more women in the community.

[Abd ducks].


Sun Jun 23, 2019 8:12 am
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4447
Reply with quote
As if anyone needed any more proof of what was really driving the Wikipedians who pushed really hard for the Mail, and only the Mail, to be banned.......
Quote:
Think about why we exclude self-published sources. It isn't because they are automatically bad. It is because we simply have no way to know whether what is in the SPS is a lie. I would argue that certain sources (The Daily Mail, Breitbart News. Infowars) have been proven to publish so many outright lies that when they publish something new we simply have no way to know whether what they publish is a lie. Sort of the opposite of having a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
They talk about it in the same breath as Infowars. Seeing these people talk, you would have no idea there was any kind of press regulation in the UK at all, much less any actual laws that produce severe consequences for doing the things this turd-bag seems to think are the Mail's actual business model. They genuinely seem to think we are like America. We are not.

The only person getting away with telling obvious lies, is Guy Macon et al, aided and abetted by the autonomous and self-governing Wikipedia community (since it is now well established that even if the legal owners of the Wikipedia domain were contacted by the Mail with a request to remove some of the more obvious defamation and they were advised by their lawyers to comply lest they face Gawker level damages, the volunteers would defy them).

This is Wikipedia all over. They want what they deny everyone else, the right to publish opinion as if it were fact, even if that opinion damages living people.

If Macon can show the Mail has been "proven to publish so many outright lies that when they publish something new we simply have no way to know whether what they publish is a lie" then he can use the defence of absolute truth. The fact he has to say "I would argue" shows he knows he is dealing in opinion. Even if it is an opinion widely held by the Wikipedians, jealous as they are that they haven't even made even a tiny dent in the Mail's fortunes or reputation, it doesn't make it a fact.


Mon Jul 22, 2019 2:58 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 120 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users 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:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group ColorizeIt.
Designed by ST Software.