Page 6 of 12

Re: The Daily Mail ban

Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2018 9:07 pm
by CrowsNest
And if you doubted it, no, Macon sees no difference between his stance on the SPLC and the Mail......
Care for a list of times when The Daily Mail or infowars met your "'wrong' even in some things, is not 'wrong' in all things' criteria?" Even the worst sources are often right. The SPLC is wrong often enough to no longer be considered a reliable source for labeling people as extremists. If they really are extremists, we should be able to find other sources -- sources that have a track record of fact checking, that give sources for their claims, and that print retractions when it becomes blindingly obvious that they got something wrong. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:26, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
The chickens are well and truly coming home to roost. It really doesn't pay to encourage the likes of Macon into thinking what he does when he's off on one of his missions, as he was with the Mail ban, has community support. One day, he will end up shitting in your slippers. Today is that day for anyone hoping to defend the reliability of the SPLC. And Jimmy Wales. Should have disowned him when they had the chance.

Re: The Daily Mail ban

Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2018 11:19 pm
by CrowsNest
Breitbart is for the chop now.
Ming has to wonder why it is necessary to ban what are obviously political advocacy sites. The DM was a special case: a hundred years ago it was still just another ordinary newspaper.
Ming has to accept that the Mail was banned for being a political advocacy site. If Ming is confused Ming only has to read the reasoning for the proposal......
Should Breitbart be deprecated as a source in the same was as WP:DAILYMAIL and other partisan sites with a poor reputation for factual accuracy? Fact checkers find large numbers of Breitbart stories to be misleading, false or both and the site admits to pushing fake news.[43] Guy (Help!) 12:40, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
At this time, of course no other "partisan sites" have been depreciated the way the Mail has been. At the end of this process, that list will be, the Mail and Brietbart. Nobody needs to be a genius to figure out what this ban has been about.

You do need to work pretty hard to make the case that the Mail, and only the Mail, somehow ceased to be an ordinary newspaper in the British sense of a free press, where having a clearly defined political stance is no crime. Still, Ming has never been afraid of saying stupid stuff and not remotely defending it. Much like the Wikipedians. What can you expect from a guy who calls himself Ming, and refers to himself in the third person?

Re: The Daily Mail ban

Posted: Wed Sep 05, 2018 12:07 am
by CrowsNest
These are the facts. Breitbart is a partisan site with a poor reputation for factual accuracy, fact checkers find large numbers of Breitbart stories to be misleading, false or both and the site admits to pushing fake news (see Editor Admits Breitbart Publishes Fake News). Guy (Help!) 18:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Guy Chapman is pro-science. And yet whenever he is taking on a task like this, he is always strangely imprecise. Both on simple numbers ("large") and crucial distinctions ("false" or "misleading"). We are not even told which fact checkers he is citing. He will presumably draw up a list if someone is a real pain in the ass and asks him for it, but he won't have one on him as of now, hence his slackness in how he presents the factual basis for his request. The same slackness was seen in the Mail ban request, but we at least know there that the requester was just trolling, and hit paydirt.

As happened in the Mail debate, the Wikipedians steered well clear of any debate as to what constitutes a large number of false or misleading stories for a large organisation. We know their first and indeed only attempt to make a comparison of the Mail to a so called reputable publisher using actual figures, was an outright fabrication. Say it loud enough, the "fact" loving asshole Wikipedians might admit it for once in their lives.

The "facts" are these. Most Wikipedians think Brietbart is more unreliable than the Mail, yet the presence of "over 2,500 links" to it (which they now want to falsely portray as a "defacto ban"), did not stir them to ban it like the Mail, until now. If they cared about reliability, this does not make sense. Just like the fact they have still got thousands of links to the Mail. It only makes sense if these are politically motivated requests done on a whim, and today just happened to be the day Guy got pissed off enough at Breitbart to go all sciency on their asses and bring his uncited fact-opinions to the table. The Wikipedians lap it up, because they're allergic to real facts and care only about their own opinions.

Re: The Daily Mail ban

Posted: Thu Sep 13, 2018 2:13 pm
by CrowsNest
Blah blah blah. :roll:
there is a substantive difference between the Mail and the Mirror (and Sun and the rest) in its fabrication of stories, churnalism (especially in Mail Online), harassment and incitement to harassment, and of course its notorious "sidebar of shame". Guy (Help!) 12:06, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
he Daily Mail was banned for repeatedly lying, not just for poor fact checking. I probably would have supported a ban for The Daily Mirror while Piers Morgan was editing it, but is there any evidence that its inaccurate stories are any more than poor/lazy journalism? Once Paul Dacre leaves the Mail we'll probably have to review that ban too, if we can be sure the fabricated stories have come to an end. If we are going to just ban The Daily Mirror for being crap then we should just bite the bullet and ban all British tabloids for being crap. Betty Logan (talk) 10:40, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Contrary to policy, the Wikibastards make no effort to provide proof for these extraordinary claims, just like there was no such effort during the ban discussion......

It is so ironic how they are free to just make shit up, in a discussion where they justify banning a media company for supposedly just making shit up.

Re: The Daily Mail ban

Posted: Thu Sep 13, 2018 2:26 pm
by CrowsNest
For context, Ritchie is the Wikipedia Administrator who has written several anti-Daily Mail Wikipedia articles. This discussion is him proposing the initiator of the Mail ban discussion be unblocked so he can help in the fight against the Mail, before he has even bothered to figure out why he was blocked. You literally could not make this shit up. Yet more proof this ban was the product of bias, bias, jealousy and more bias. Prove me wrong, anyone, seriously.
I'm sick and f***ing tired of removing citations to The Sun (we still have about 80) and The Daily Mail (over 1200) from BLPs. Can I have a second for unblocking Hillbillyholiday (who I see was de-facto banned with thoughtful comments like "let's lose the asshat") or do we have to take it to the WP:Dramaboard first? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

If only Hillbilly could come back (without any attached socks) under a period of "supervised probation" and be given a useful task to complete like "remove all inappropriate DM citations"? But the likelihood of Neil agreeing to that doesn't seem very likely, does it? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:18, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I suppose I'd better go and look through those incredibly exciting ANI threads and see what the actual context is on this. I can contact Hillbilly off-wiki about an unblock, but there's no point if he's just going to get whipped by the peanut gallery and have the appeal tossed out. However, if I see evidence of editors restoring things like this, I will be unimpressed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:38, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
I am unaware of Rtichie being a real life associate of HH, so it is ironic that the only way he would know now to contact him, is as a result of the Mail's journalism. Odd how he doesn't assume that information is a fabrication or otherwise erroneous..........

The people are too stupid to be allowed to do anything in this world, much less sit in judgement over journalists.

Re: The Daily Mail ban

Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 1:25 pm
by CrowsNest
To nobody's great surprise I am sure, a complaint that Guy Chapman's failure to ask the question 'is Breitbart a reliable source' in a way that didn't immediately poison the well, has been shut down as "Quasi-dubious process wonkery. Move on."

The whole debate is a farce. I am baffled as to why anyone is even commenting there as if there was going to be any other outcome. It is simply pointless to argue with people like Guy Chapman, or indeed anyone who thinks the name of the game is that the conclusion comes before the evidence. Just let them do what they do, it speaks for itself.

If Wikipedians had any clue as to how damaging this sort of obvious chicanery is for their claims to be neutral and objective, well, they simply wouldn't do it, would they? They have literally no clue how it looks, much less a desire to avoid it, so trying to highlight it to them, even from a standpoint that you care for and believe in Wikipedia, is like trying to tell a dog that he shouldn't lick his balls in public.

You should approach all debates on Wikipedia as if they were written by dumb animals, and then, if at all possible, try to find the evidence that suggests otherwise. Or you can be the person who still assumes these debates have nothing to do with politics.

On Wikipedia, these two things are said by the same person, Guy Chapman, not 24 hours apart....
the Mail is a once-mainstream news organisation whose right wing editorial bias has turned into a drive to push a political agenda

I think you missed the point. It's not about bias, it's about fabrication, propaganda and lack of fact checking in service of that bias.
These people clearly think it is everyone else who is as dumb as a dog.

Re: The Daily Mail ban

Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2018 6:12 pm
by CrowsNest

Re: The Daily Mail ban

Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2018 11:40 pm
by CrowsNest
Now The Sun is being lined up for official censure. There was me thinking it was already de-facto banned, hence no need for an official finding, a la the Mail. And Wikipedians would not lie, would they? But apparently not. :roll:

Anyway, here's an attempted explanation from one of the scum for why the Mail was first.....
Comparisons to the Daily Mail are misleading; the Mail has a professional-looking website with the trappings of a legitimate newspaper, so readers (particularly those outside the UK who aren't familiar with its questionable accuracy) understandably don't realise that it's not a credible source and try to cite it. Nobody seeing the wall of tits-and-celebrities that constitutes the Sun website would be in any doubt that it's a ropey tabloid. ‑ Iridescent 21:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
If this piece of shit was half as honest as people seem to think he is, he would have remembered (or bothered to go look) that the Mail ban discussion features repeated references to the "wall of tits-and-celebrities" on the Mail's website.

Re: The Daily Mail ban

Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2018 3:25 am
by CrowsNest
Two years on, people are still requesting the evidence that the the Mail is "generally unreliable", and the Wikipedians are still bullshitting them.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That is supposedly one of Wikipedia's key policies. Not anecdotes, unreliable sources (the irony) or argument by assertion. They conveniently ignore it every single time this obviously wrong decision is challenged.

I could quite easily write a guidebook on what these morons say in these debates. It is all so predictable. They're still even trying to cling onto this pathetic idea that it is "not a ban". They're so brazen, they literally stare you plainly in the face, and treat you as if you were a fool. Which they readily assume you are, because in their tiny minds, the mere act of questioning this ban, means you are a Daily Mail reader, a.k.a. thick.

Since their own model for ensuring accountability clearly does not work (no point in being open if there is no penalty for bullshitting people who come through the door looking for answers) it is time to get these utter bullshitters held to account using other means.

Everything about this ban is morally and logically unsustainable, which would be the inevitable conclusion if it were remotely possible to have a bullshit free debate of the topic, properly moderated and professionally assessed. I.e. fact checked and arguments weighted.

But this is Wikipedia. Bullshit is what they do. It is literally everywhere, this ban is merely a high profile example of it.

We often forget, we don't even know if some of these people are literally children. Or have learning difficulties. Or are paid operatives of the Mail's competitors. Or are Hugh Grant.

They banned Peter Hitchens simply for highlighting their model does not work. They have no sense of shame, no fear of any consequences. You think they wouldn't bullshit a nobody like you? Go try it.

Re: The Daily Mail ban

Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2018 2:33 pm
by CrowsNest
To any interested lawyers, please note the person who made this comment on Wikipedia, is an identifiable individual residing in the UK.....
[To be reconsidered as an acceptable source on Wikipedia, the Mail] need a track record of not being a worse-than-useless source to overcome a long and extensively-documented history of literally making stuff up - David Gerard (talk) 00:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
They are begging to be sued. Arguably they want to be sued, because they think they would win, further damaging the Mail. As anyone can see, they would not win. And being a UK court, the damages would be substantial, because nobody can argue the press coverage alone from this "ban" has had real world impact on their reputation, despite being based on claims which were known to be false.

There is no point expecting the Wikipedians to account for these claims on Wikipedia. Nobody is getting banned for making defamatory statements like this, nor will they ever be banned, despite them claiming to have policies which protect real people from the irresponsible statements made by volunteers on Wikipedia's servers. The people who work for the Mail, plus all those who are otherwise professionally associated with it, they are either deemed worthy of being protected from harm by Wikipedia, or they are not.

If Wikipedia itself cannot be sued, and that is debatable if they choose not to remove these statements once formally notified of their existence, then they leave people looking for recourse no choice but to directly target those making the statements, to the full extent of the law. Here is one such target. A very legitimate target, as his deeply entrenched relationship with the website in question, makes clear.

People can ask for the evidence to support the ban on Wikipedia until they are blue in the face. They can be as explicit as they like, for example......
There seem to be few if any high quality sources claiming DM is general unreliable , especially since the major improvements after the recent change of editor. Outdated opinion pieces from journalists & quotes from disgruntled x-employees, while not worthless, are far from top tier sources. Individual DM articles may contain falsehoods, but misleading info can be found in any type of sources, most definitively in the types of sources Wikipedians tend to consider most reliable. There is no totally satisfactory substitute for editorial discretion.

IPSOS, the media watchdog body, tracks complaints upheld against each publisher in each year. In 2015 only two complaints were upheld against Associated, the owners of the Daily Mail, compared to nine complaints being upheld for Telegraph Media Group and Trinity Mirror (owners of the Telegraph and the Mirror respectively), ten being upheld against Northern and Shell (owners of the Express and the Star), and eleven complaints against News UK (owners of the Times, the Sunday Times, and the Sun). IPSOS also noted that "Associated was the most assiduous group at resolving complaints, having done so on 23 occasions". If the Daily Mail is the horrifically inaccurate source that it has been portrayed as being by some editors, then this is not immediately apparent in terms of complaints upheld or the attitude of the publication to those complaints. Whilst 2015 was a particularly low year for Associated, the statistics for 2016 (see pp. 16-17 here) and 2017 (see pp. 22-23 here) in terms of complaints upheld were also lower for Associated than for their main competitors. Whilst the total volume of complaints for the DM is high, it is not higher than for the Sun, and proportionate to circulation is not remarkable compared to other publications regulated by IPSOS.
Statements like this, are routinely ignored on Wikipedia. Mr Gerard, who provided no evidence at all for their claims, is given equal weight in these so called community deliberations, despite that being completely against their own rules. For an organisation that so routinely ignores its own rules when it suits, there really is no point pursuing any kind of case with them on their terms. They are only going to sit up and take notice of those who see this for what it is, when they receive a High Court summons.