Jayron32: Randomly finding an occasional good article doesn't make [the Daily Mail] a reliable source.

Good, bad, biased, paid or what-have-you. There's an endless supply.
Post Reply
User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 717
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 113 times

Jayron32: Randomly finding an occasional good article doesn't make [the Daily Mail] a reliable source.

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Wed Mar 31, 2021 9:54 pm

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

Here's an example of the sort of utter wankstain that is allowed to run amock on Wikipedia, deciding what is and is not a reliable source, and therefore, what is knowledge.

Jayron32 is one of the many Administrators of Wikipedia who are just part of the furniture. You're never getting rid of them, even if they shot someone point blank on 5th Avenue. Their politics is the correct politics for the wikishites, so they are going nowhere.

Back in the land of reality, as anyone who hasn't got shit for brains can see, the following article....

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... lives.html

...is pretty standard fare for the Mail. It is not an example of an "occasional good article", it is literally their everyday product.

In depth, well researched, quote heavy. Real news. Worth reading. They knock out articles like this at a high volume, every day.

That is why they are an award winning mass market newspaper, and a big part of why their online version is hugely succesful, while competitors like The Guardian have to resort to the Wikipedia model of survival - BEGGING FOR DONATIONS.

The truth of the matter has always been that the Wikishites have presented ABSOLUTELY FUCK ALL PROOF that Mail articles are generally unreliable. They have cherry picked examples, sure, but as they like to conveniently forget, no newspaper is perfect.

There is a reason they paid no attention to matters like circulation or comparisons to other titles, much less even more basic matters like how newspapers work (i.e. where they get their information from) when making their decision to ban the Mail.

It's no surprise that here, in this usage, even though it's not even a political story, the Daily Mail citation was replaced by less detailed pieces from The Guardian, New York Times and ABC News, all liberal/left leaning sources.

It's further proof that the Daily Mail is hated by wikishites for one reason, and one reason alone - it's the most popular and most right wing paper in Britain. Unacceptable.

For the Wikipedians, you can't be right wing and capable of being truthful. They will ban the Times/Telegraph in due course, you watch. Not that they need to, having a paywall is effectively a ban anyway.

You also can't do what Wikipedia do, and benefit from a high Google ranking. For it is clear that this article wasn't "randomly" found by the editor who wanted to use it. In their words.....
When I made the initial edit, I did indeed do a web search for the term and skimmed the ten results on the first page; I chose the best of those articles, which was the Daily Mail article. I'm a not-terribly-active but I think quite careful and policy-bound editor, and having my time evaluating a source wasted by this enforcement is awfully frustrating.
Presumanky mightily pissed off by this dose of the HARSH TRUTH, Jayron32 counter claims.....
It took me literally 10 seconds of searching to find a better source for the claim that Sullenberger was the last person to exit, and that he checked for others
.....and you can tell that's a FUCKING LIE because he said literally when he quite literally couldn't have meant literally.

This is what Wikishites do when it comes to the Daily Mail. They lie to your face. They piss on you, and tell you it's raining. Why? Well, do you see anyone on Wikipedia being punished for telling lies about the Daily Mail?

It works. It got the Mail haters of Wikipedia what they so desperately wanted. It got them to a position where they can say shit like this.....
There really is no reason to use Daily Mail as the only source on this (or indeed, any) article. If it's worth mentioning, it's been covered by a real news source. If it has only ever been reported by the Daily Mail, then it can't be trusted and probably isn't worth mentioning anyways. Just use that ABC News source and get rid of the DM source.
...and act like it's just true.

Is it true? Well, why don't you take a leaf out of a model Wikipedia editor's book, and try and find a reliable source that backs it up?

There is a reason why not even Wikipedia's own article on the Daily Mail makes these claims. It's because they made it up.

It's Trumpian level horseshit.

Their attitude to the Mail, as seen by a scumbag like Jayron32, is classic circular logic, mind numbing shit that Trump's press office would be proud of. If something only appears in the Mail, it mustn't be worth mentioning in Wikipedia. How do you tell if something isn't worth mentioning on Wikipedia? If it only appears in the Mail.

They think people are stupid. They're the ones who are stupid. They banned the Mail in the hopes others would follow suit and similarly decide it's not a real newspaper. Nobody did. Because their lies and their motivation is just beyond obvious.

The Mail actually got one of the other so called fact checkers to revise their claims about their product, after admitting they hadn't taken into account things like circulation. How? Well, unlike Wikipedia, that organisation was operating under the law. They can and would have been sued for defamation, had they persisted without producing their proof.

User avatar
boredbird
Sucks Mod
Posts: 500
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2017 3:24 am
Has thanked: 635 times
Been thanked: 286 times

Re: Jayron32: Randomly finding an occasional good article doesn't make [the Daily Mail] a reliable source.

Post by boredbird » Wed Mar 31, 2021 10:17 pm

Daniel Brandt wrote: Jayron32
administrator
Jason R. Remy
Garner, North Carolina, USA
high school teacher
born:1976-08-30
Pronounced like "ream me".
Jason R. Remy wrote: Jason the Bone-Breaker, Scion of House Remy
https://facebook.com/profile.php?id=1439301250
Jason R. Remy wrote: Jason R Remy
@MrRemy6
Science Teacher at Southeast Raleigh Magnet High School
https://twitter.com/mrremy6
verecor.com wrote: Jason Ronald Remy
Age ~45
Also known as: Jason Ronald Remy, Jason Remy, Jennifer Remy
5720 Brambleton Ave., Raleigh, NC 27610
(919) 771-0267
https://verecor.com/view/Jason-Remy-DPF0DE
https://clustrmaps.com/a/rp1so/
https://www.google.com/maps/place/5720+ ... ,+NC+27610
1iYt019x.jpg
1iYt019x.jpg (12.01 KiB) Viewed 1696 times

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4547
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1099 times
Been thanked: 1797 times

Re: Jayron32: Randomly finding an occasional good article doesn't make [the Daily Mail] a reliable source.

Post by ericbarbour » Sat Apr 03, 2021 4:53 am

Jake Is A Sellout wrote:
Wed Mar 31, 2021 9:54 pm
For the Wikipedians, you can't be right wing and capable of being truthful. They will ban the Times/Telegraph in due course, you watch. Not that they need to, having a paywall is effectively a ban anyway.
It has been said that the increasing use of paywalling by news organizations will eventually strangle Wikipedia. Although I suspect it will collapse from internal strife long before they lose all their "free" reference sources.

Remy was outed 10 years ago. Not particularly difficult, esp. since he uses his real name on Facebook and friends dozens of other WP insiders. I suspect he had a FB account very early in their history. He is a classic authoritarian leftist; "do as I say, not as I do" etc.

Post Reply