Page 7 of 12

Re: The Daily Mail ban

PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2018 9:43 am
by CrowsNest
All of these statements were made by an identifiable person, as part of edit summaries, that is, a part of Wikipedia's official record keeping, that is impossible to redact unless you have advanced permissions

This is how confident they are of not being sued. It is high time somebody called their bluff.

Guy Macon wrote:17:35, 6 December 2018 diff hist +874‎ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard ‎ →‎Survey (Daily Mail): Kill it. Kill it with fire.

16:55, 5 December 2018 diff hist +561‎ Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard ‎ →‎The Daily Mail and WP:RGW: Any use of The Daily Mail as a source has a high probability of linking to a copyright violation.

16:48, 5 December 2018 diff hist +715‎ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard ‎ →‎Comments: Not all editors who disagree with the ban are daily mail fanboys, but all daily mail fanboys disagree with the ban.

15:53, 5 December 2018 diff hist +2,093‎ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard ‎ →‎Comments: We don't link to any sources that we know have a high probability of being copyright violations

Re: The Daily Mail ban

PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2018 11:05 am
by CrowsNest
Seriously, what the fuck?
the DM ban was about a long-standing pervasive culture at the DM that showed a lack of journalistic integrity and reliability, across all stories, for all time......

--Jayron32 18:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I can't stress enough, this is being said by a WIKIPEDIA ADMINISTRATOR, about a market leading award winning mass circulation newspaper.

Their Administrators are the guys who theoretically protect all those who work for and are associated with the Mail, from defamation at the hands of Wikipedia.

Re: The Daily Mail ban

PostPosted: Sun Dec 09, 2018 3:33 am
by sashi
I guess you saw, CN, that this is being retried at RS/N. Some ghosts showed up to vote "yes" (which means "no" to the ban). That's their first contribution in 5 months or so. Hm.

In any case, this is mostly just a circular link, since it is possible to reach this thread from the RS/N survey by going on a long and circuitous clicking spree via the WPO blog, (sorry ^^).

Re: The Daily Mail ban

PostPosted: Sun Dec 09, 2018 4:29 am
by CrowsNest
sashi wrote:That's their first contribution in 5 months or so. Hm.
What's wrong with that? Disgust at this ban is a fine reason to stop actively editing Wikipedia, but you obviously wouldn't shy away from continuing to register your opposition when the opportunity arises, as pointless as it may be.
sashi wrote:In any case, this is mostly just a circular link, since it is possible to reach this thread from the RS/N survey by going on a long and circuitous clicking spree via the WPO blog, (sorry ^^).
No idea what this means, sorry. :?

Re: The Daily Mail ban

PostPosted: Sun Dec 09, 2018 4:53 am
by sashi
I was banned for 500 days by Goldenring. I find them returning to en.wp to echo my sentiments odd since they chose not to get involved in my appeal. But, whatever, as you say, those who sit and watch are probably wiser than those who sling the mud. I'll just say I appreciated getting my head screwed back on after it had been lopped off into their pot.

As for your second comment, I added a link in that discussion to the "Sources & Methods" blogpost (§) that talks about the Daily Mail ban, and which links here, recommending the wearing of appropriate ISO-approved headgear.

curious side-note:
*googling "Wikipedia Sources and Methods" yields pages and pages of Wikipedia pages, but no Wikipediocrazy article.
*using DuckDuckGo returns the Wikipediocrazy article of the same name as its first result.

Re: The Daily Mail ban

PostPosted: Sun Dec 09, 2018 5:18 am
by CrowsNest
The Daily Mail is not now nor has it ever been a reliable source. Simonm223 (talk) 20:09, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
So why did even the people banning it, claim otherwise? Editors are
use meant to use common sense when considering a historical Daily Mail source. Even though this fuckwit contradicts the findings of the original consensus, his view will be added to the pile that says that consensus is valid.
No it's gutter tripe, and should be closed down. If anything, we should be looking to do this kind of thing more often, disallowing utter shite sources which purport to have some level of gravitas just because they've been around a bit. Nonsense source, usually hysterical and always motivated by POV, not an iota of neutrality, kill it. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:54, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
A classic example of the sort of comment that should be ignored because it blatantly ignores existing Wikipedia policy - bias is considered irrelevant when assessing reliability. A point that had already been made in the debate, and was happily ignored by his idiot. But this is Wikipedia, people openly foaming at the mouth like this, with zero evidence they have even read the debate, will win the day. They banned the Mail, because that's what their animal brains told them they wanted to do. Then they went hunting for food, and had sex with their cousin, and then set upon an outsider (a distant cousin). The very idea these people are capable of intellectual discussion, is an insult to civilisation.
Also, I suggest a speedy close of this and future discussions on the topic unless they have some indication that things have changed, either externally (in the world or the Daily Mail itself) or internally (within Wikipedia, its practices, or policies). The whole point of the massive, extensively-covered, carefully-closed WP:RFC last time was that the Daily Mail was a point of constant contention that needed to be firmly settled once and for all........-Aquillion (talk) 14:59, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Amazing how insistent he is, isn't it? Absolutely no recognition here that it is meant to be basic Wikipedia policy that nothing is ever "settled once and for all", and that one of the mains reasons why that is, is mistakes are often made. Literally every word of this pompous ass' view, and that if his or or post where he misremembers who initiated the ban debate and why, can be contradicted with facts and widely held opinions. For weeks afterwards, even a sizeable number of Wikipedians were loudly protesting that this RfC had not been widely advertised, certainly not consumate with its perceived importance as a massive media attention grabbing precedent. So why is he lying? The disturbing reality is, he probably doesn't even know he is lying. He probably thinks his false recollections are the truth. Then again, he may also be deliberately lying. This is the beauty of Wikipedia - for this sort of person, lying, or making statements you haven't verified, is a no penalty activity. His view will be added to the pile, as perfectly valid. That was the problem with the original decision, that is why the close was faulty.
I see nothing that was raised in the prior RFC that has changed. There is no worthwhile story the Daily Mail has ever covered that another, more reliable source hasn't covered without the taint of the awful problems. If it's only in the Daily Mail, and nowhere else, I wouldn't trust it being worthwhile to cover. --Jayron32 18:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

And even if if appears to be worthwhile to cover, if it is only in the Daily Mail and nowhere else the odds are extremely high that The Daily Mail plagiarized it, added a few lies to make it more clickbaity, then posted it under their byline as if it was their work. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

They still can't even get their story straight. Either there is nothing exclusive to the Mail that you would want in their encyclopedia , or there isn't. This is a basic, yes, no, question. Even if yes is considered a small number, then "no" is still obviously a lie. And Guy Macon has in fact changed his story - he used to proclaim there was nothing in the Mail that Wikipedia would ever want to use (and not because of his defamatory claims about its publishing practices).

As you might expect for a Wikipedia debate, the first comment was made even after someone had already given an example of the sort instance where the Mail does have exclusivity over content deemed encyclopedic. Their preferred solution here is, as you might have guessed, remove it from Wikipedia on the basis it is not encyclopedic and was only added by someone who doesn't know what an encyclopedia is (usually contradicted by a review of their edit history). A decision they would not take, if they didn't know it was only sourceable to the Mail.

Let's not forget, they haven't even finished (barely even started) the process of removing the Mail as a source. The very last to go, will be the ones where they really want the information, but can't find what they deem to be reliable source. We have already seen their preferred approach in such cases - remove the citation, but keep the material, not even bothering to add a {citation-needed} or even {better-source-needed} tag.

That's the problem with these people. They think the rest of the world are idiots. They think we don't know anything about what happens on Wikipedia, and have no abilty to match up what they say with what they do, or remember their past to inform the present.


You are liars, and you are idiots.

Re: The Daily Mail ban

PostPosted: Sun Dec 09, 2018 7:18 am
by sashi
I added the RfC to the Centralized Discussion template. In the process, I thought about adding the edit summary h/t Coffee, thought better of it and opted for h/t Crow's nest, but the edit filter wouldn't let me save it with the blue-link. Curses, foiled again. ^^

In related "technicity / CIR" news I have no idea how to undo the AGF renaming I mentioned at wp:errors.

Re: The Daily Mail ban

PostPosted: Sun Dec 09, 2018 7:31 am
by CrowsNest
What, you mean this RfC didn't get the wide advertisement that befits its significance? Just like the last one didn't get, which people complained about to no avail?

Who would have thought it?

Everyone. Everyone thought it. Everyone except the Wikipedians. Not a single one of them thought it. Not even the ones claiming to be totally familiar with what happened last time around.

Who would have thought it?


Re: The Daily Mail ban

PostPosted: Sun Dec 09, 2018 7:46 am
by CrowsNest
This dumbass literally didn't even look beyond the opening line.
Oppose. Invalid RFC as the proposer presents no rationale or evidence for overturning a site-wide consensus. Gamaliel (talk) 14:48, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Nor did his brain lead him to wonder why so many Wikipedians have already voted in a supposedly "invalid" RfC.

He's not a random Wikipedian either, he's one of the most (in?)famous Wikipedians that has ever stained this Earth. One of their top of the line models. Can talk and everything.

Seriously, if you can't even read, how are you even allowed to register an opinion? Because in Wikipedia terminology, that's what all these things are, opinions. Not votes. Considered opinions.

They have a choice. They could stop it if they wanted to. They do not want to. If you want to ban the Daily Mail, you can say "No. Monkies Fly Out Of My Butt", and they will find a way to have your opinion cancel out someone who says something like, oh, let's say, "The statement that the Daily Mail was generally unreliable that came from the previous RfC had no grounding in evidence - it was based only on anecdotal evidence insufficient to sustain a general finding." to take a not so random example (literally the first retrospective Yes opinion registered, not that it mattered, as per all of the above).

If you think that an extreme, to the point of absurd, example, consider how often you see these so called debates closed with some form of wording which refers to the numbers on each side, even if only as a setting the scene type precursor to the even bigger lies that are about to be told in order to justify the wrong outcome. Unless this retard has his "opinion" struck, he will surely be included in that total, and so offset the person who gave a perfectly sound opinion, one that is being ignored.

Re: The Daily Mail ban

PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:05 am
by CrowsNest
How do these people not fall down more?
I strongly object to the unfounded allegations of general political motivations behind the previous RfC. Such repeated personalizing allegations are a violation of WP:AGF and counterproductive. Lastly, anecdotal evidence - within reason - is a perfectly valid argument for community-internal discussions. Wikipedia is not a court of law. GermanJoe (talk) 17:27, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
If anecdotal evidence is fine for Wikipedia (we can ignore "within reason" because of course they have not said what they consider reasonable), then why would the numerous examples of the ban supporters directly claiming the Mail's bias as motivating them, be good enough to prove a general political motivation?