Unsurprisingly, the fix is in.......
This request for comment was created to review the results of a January 2017 RfC, which established consensus that the Daily Mail was not a reliable source, and that its use in most Wikipedia articles was prohibited. Overturning this result requires a demonstration that community consensus on this point has changed.
Reviewing the substance of the arguments presented here, we find that there is firm consensus against overturning the previous RfC. This is true with respect to the strength of the arguments, examined in greater detail below, and the numerical distribution of !votes, where more than two-thirds of those commenting here opposed overturning previous consensus.
A number of arguments on both sides of this debate were related to false or misleading stories published by the Daily Mail. The evidence for these arguments was very similar in nature to that advanced in the first RfC, and the pattern demonstrated by this evidence is essentially the same here as in that discussion: evidence for unverified, fabricated, and incorrect information is widespread.
Several arguments to reverse the previous restriction on the Daily Mail cited its change in editor. However, no substantive evidence was put forward demonstrating that such a change in reliability has already occurred, and several editors said in response that two months is too short a period for any substantial change to have occurred.
Some editors suggested that the previous RfC needed to be overturned because there were non-controversial facts which were reported in the Daily Mail and nowhere else. We note that the use of the Daily Mail as a source in such instances, in addition to being allowed explicitly by the previous RfC, would be covered by WP:IAR in any case.
Finally, a number of editors argued that other publications were similarly, or more, unreliable than the Daily Mail. We note that the unreliability of a different source is a reason to remove that source, and is irrelevant here; regardless, these other publications are outside the scope of this RfC, and if there are lingering concerns about other tabloids or tabloids in general, a separate RfC is necessary to assess current consensus about them.
Vanamonde (talk) 05:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Ymblanter (talk) 07:22, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Primefac (talk) 11:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Unsurprisingly, not a word was said about Primefac being on this panel, even though it's purpose is to theoretically examine the community view of the decision he made as a member of the original panel.
They were of course hugely influenced by the number of votes on each side, giving no indication of whether they did anything more than count them. So much for 'not a vote'.
They claim they also took into account strength of argument, but their summation of the main themes is of course lacking in many respects, leaving many issues with the weakness of the arguments made completely unaddressed. As I predicted.
They claim the evidence presented is the same, neatly sidestepping all the complaints about the nature of it, which was as important if not more so than the issue of there being a new editor. We will apparently never get a formal statement as to why all it ever seems to take to convince Wikipedians that a national newspaper is guilty of the most serious examples of misconduct, as a matter of routine, allegedly because it is their entire business mode, is anecdotal evidence drawn from biased and otherwise unreliable sources.
The only evidence not meeting that bill, is IPSO data, and the closers of course have made no mention at all of the debate surrounding its interpretation. There is not even a hint that they appreciate this would be an important aspect of the debate that needs summation. Not least since deliberate misrepresentation of IPSO data by the initiator, who then later admitted he had "used Daily Mail tactics" to achieve what he wanted, was a key factor in the original ban debate. That person is now banned from Wikipedia, for entirely unrelated but troubling patterns of showing complete disrespect for basic Wikipedia policy, one with legal implications.
There is repetition of the obviously false claim that there are some instances where use of the Mail as a source for facts that cannot be sourced elsewhere, would be tolerated. It is not, this has been proven both in theory and in fact. Why lie about something so obviously untrue? Because this is all about PR. They hate it when people call this a ban, so they put that lie in there yet again, just so it can be claimed it is not a ban.
There is a repetition of the utter absurdity it is that there really is nothing wrong with how the Wikipedians seem to be deliberately singling out the Mail, choosing not to take the same action for other sources that are being used right now, but are deemed to be just as unreliable, if not more so. The ban debate on The Sun is still sitting there, unclosed, despite the fact it predates this debate. Why?
We know why they are singling out the Mail, several of the Wikipedians said it outright. They are pissed that the rest of the world still sees the Mail as a serious newspaper, not a tabloid rag, and they want to change that perception. It ironically doesn't seem to matter that their own Wikipedia article on it does not support their claims (because they cannot reliably source it, they just hope readers will be confused by their mention of "tabloid" in the format context), it only lists criticism as anecdotes, and none rise to the level of national scandal seen in other titles. They hope to be a driver of the change they want to see, presumably through a variant of the mechanism of citogenisis, using the views of Wikipedians to seed what ultimately becomes true by being sourced in a Wikipedia article.
There is no mention of any of those inconvenient truths in this closure, the seeds of this hatred. They only mention the apparently unpersuasive whinges of the whingers. They are confident the opinions of people like Guy Chapman and Guy Macon, which give exact and quotable reasons why there is singular focus on the Mail, will remain unseen, buried in the mass of repetitious and fact averse text they call a debate, which they now claim to have summarised. It would not do to allow the press to quote those parts. All about the PR. Neutrality? Pah.
This is an indefensible closure. Nothing will be done about it. There will be no consequences for Wikipedia making a statement like this....
evidence for unverified, fabricated, and incorrect information [in stories published by the Daily Mail] is widespread.
.....soon to be repeated in the Mail's competitors, and therefore fed right back into Wikipedia as an accepted truth, even though it is at best, a misrepresentation (hinges on interpretation of "widespread" in the context of a mass circulation national newspaper), at worst, a deliberate smear (easily proven to be the case when you look at the prevalence of bias and emotionally driven commentary on the part of numerous supporters of the ban).
It is fitting that Wikipedia, in the context of a debate about accuracy, still seemingly can't settle this issue with any more precision than "widespread". Almost as if they really don't care about the consequences of their actions on the reputations of professional people. They were given a chance to rectify that mistake, a chance to prove this ban was absolutely grounded in solid evidence that demonstrated an actual pattern of significant impact, that this was all done for unassailably pure motives and featured sound reasoning and impeccable ettiquette throughout, ideally by people who have the first clue about the relevant issues, namely how newspapers work. They rejected the chance, and just doubled down on the mistake. That is now unafraid they are of any kind of repurcussions for their collective ignorance and malfeasance.
I said it before. Holding them to account using the courts, is the only way anything will change. They are already morally bankrupt, so presenting them with the possibility of being financially bankrupt unless they retract their defamatory statements, is the only option. And if they are already penniless, as is most likely given they are Wikipedia addicts, then destroy their reputations through the power of the internet, just as they seek to destroy the reputations of their enemies with the same. If they get their defence crowdfunded, then drain that, with glee, making sure they know every penny wasted on that, is a penny lost to securing Wikipedia's financial independence.
If they remotely had a case, if they could prove the Mail is what they claim it is, then telling the truth, doing things the right way, would have been the sensible option. It would protect their wallets and their reputations. Instead, they chose to risk it all. That is how deep this hatred goes. That is the undeniable truth of what Wikipedia is, who the Wikipedians are.
They deserve everything that is coming to them for being so bold and blatant. Everything.