A perfect example of why Wikipedia editors want to keep the Daily Mail out of Wikipedia
Posted: Sun Jun 27, 2021 9:32 am
As everyone knows, the Daily Mail is the UK's most widely read and most right wing mass market newspaper. It is an important window into the mood of the public and the politicians that govern us, since we currently have a right wing government with an unassailable Parliamentary majority, and a left wing Opposition that, even after a leadership change, continues to stumble from one historic defeat to another.
An encyclopedia that ignores the Mail therefore, for events of this time period, is an encyclopedia that won't be giving an accurate or even honest picture of British history.
Here is a Guardian opinion piece that seeks to criticise a recent Mail story regarding new vaccine effectiveness data.
https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver ... vaccinated
It takes issue with the Mail headline......
So what's the deal here? Well, we have a Guardian opinion writer trying to deceive people into thinking the Mail doesn't write stories which contain the sober analysis of experts and doesn't get into details like vaccine coverage and effectiveness. Or when they do, they misrepresent them.
Sound familiar? It reads exactly like the anti-Mail propaganda spouted by Wikipedia editors. Which is unsurprising, because the Guardian is their favourite newspaper. It being the only left wing newspaper in Brtiain, at least the only one that doesn't have (too many) media scandals in its history.
Even so, even though Piers Morgan was a past editor of the largest left wing tabloid, The Mirror, until he ran a fake front page story falsely accusing the Army of war crimes, that's still not enough for the Wikipedia community to declare the Mirror to be as bad as if not worse than the Mail. Still think this ban isn't about politics?
But sadly for the Wikipedia editors, as is all too common when it comes to their views of the Mail, reality doesn't match their bullshit. A read of the Mail article reveals it has lots of expert opinion, and does talk about what they think about vaccine effectiveness and coverage.
Because that was, after all, the WHOLE FUCKING POINT of the headline. This was a story written in advance of the Prime Minister having to decide whether to delay the lifting of further restrictions. Which he did indeed, delay. Why? As the report shows, it was because this Delta variant has changed the maths regarding vaccine effectiveness.
It is clear that uppermost in his mind, as reflected by the experts, that even if the vaccine is still somewhat effective, such is the transmissability of this new variant, and given the county isn't completely vaccinated yet, letting it run wild would result in higher deaths.
Not just in those yet to be vaccinated, but deaths of fully vaccinated people. Because, as the report makes clear, in a no shit Sherlock kind of way, the vaccines aren't one hundred percent effective. Contrary to the Guardian's arrogant presumptions, it doesn't need to explain that this means old people are still at highest risk of death, because that is already widely known.
As the opinions in the Mail article also show, this is still not an easy decision. There is a case to be made that says the costs and social harms of not unlocking, outweigh the potential deaths.
This is what irks the left. The Guardian reading class. As the Mail article makes clear, it is their habit, from the comfort of their zoom calls, in their nice houses, with their comfortable work at home full salary, to not consider those people. To blithely assume they can endure such things forever.
The Mail, as you would, expect, gives the full picture.
The Mail, as you would expect, shows that governing is hard. But it is easier when you have the public on your side. But having the majority support you, is still no excuse for screwing over the minority. If the relative handful of deaths of fully vaccinated people is cause to pause further unlocking, and the public supports this, then you need to compensate those business being worst affected.
Wikipedia editors do not want the world to know these things. They don't want the right wing perspective. It presumably pisses them off no end, that the contents of this Mail article, which is by no means unusual, this is a typical Mail article, do not conform their idiotic notions that Brtiain is currently ruled by a lying populist idiotic shitbag, who has the right wing press in his back pocket.
Johnson is not the British Trump. The Mail is not Fox News.
Farage was the British Trump. We don't have Fox News, since they found our Don't Be Lying Bastard laws a little too restrictive (as would Wikipedia, if it were to be reclassified as a media entity). Because of that, and because Britain has a better democracy and a better educated public, and inspite of the American gift to the world of Facebook et al, we were able to deal with our Trump quite effectively.
The left wing Wikipedia editors don't want the world to know these things. It is unacceptable to them that the right wing should be perceived as competent and fit to govern. In contrast to their mythology that "reality has a left wing bias", these days, in functioning democracies at least, reality has a much closer fit to the politics of the day, than left wing fantasies of their own competence.
Had the left won the last election here, which in hindsight really was a ridiculous idea, we would still be in the EU, and so our vaccine rollout would have been just as shit as theirs has been, largely due to the fact the EU is a bloated, undemocratic, power mad bureaucratic clusterfuck.
Which is one of the many reasons Britain voted for Brexit. Years ago now, David Cameron went to Brussels asking for meagre reforms to the EU's glorious vision of "Ever Closer Union" because it was not helping him keep his party together. He asked for stuff that wasn't even close to retaining our independence in matters like medicine approvals, and the right to have first dibs on vaccines produced in British laboratories using British expertise. They told him to get fucked. Brexit was the inevitable consequence. To their great surprise. Arrogance and delusion being a trait of the left.
The left wing Wikipedia editors only want the world to hear from people like this Guardian expert, even though, to my mind, he can't be all that much of an expert......
As of right now, it appears the greatest threat to the traditional right wing base, if recent individual results are to be believed, is the long awaited emergence of the centre party as a political force. And as the saying goes, we will believe it when we see it. Because this would be about the fifth time it has been predicted, only to fall at the alter of the British public realising that a vote for a third party in what is effectively a two party system, is a wasted vote.
The left wants to badly control the narrative on Wikipedia these days however, because this time at least, they can see the danger. They can see that their party is doing so badly, and has seemingly no answers at all, that they really are in danger of becoming the third party. They only won power last time after decades of being the second party, after Tony Blair effectively rebranded them as centrist. There is no such thing in the works now. Labour want to remain the party of grievance and government knows best, and seem content to go down with that ship, to join the Whiggs and the Liberals.
And what better way to control the narrative, than cancel the opposition? Just switch off their mike entirely.
I would be fine with it, if the Wikishits were being honest about their motives. The world has space for a leftist world view encyclopedia. Right wingers are nothing if not lovers of a person's freedom to choose where they get their information. The Mail has to compete on a commercial basis, and it even has to complete with a state funded news provider, which is OK, because the price for state funding is legally ensured neutrality. But they're not. They want people to believe that Mail reports like this, are unreliable. They want people to believe they might be false.
As Guy Macon has inadvertently discovered, because he really is that fucking stupid, this report, like millions before it, is accurate. It is the editorial slant, that is disliked. If it had contained fabricated quotes, if it does contain incorrect figures and claims, we would have heard by now. In large part because the Wikipedia editors would be trumpeting it from the rooftops.
As usual, all they have is criticism of a headline. And dishonest criticism at that.
But welcome to your new reality. The Guardian is a reliable source. The Mail is not. And the country is only governed by an historically strong right wing government, because the public are stupid morons and the Mail makes a profit from lying to them all day every day.
Only the Guardian and their Wikipedia editor fanboys, can see it.
They actually believe this shit. Read the Guardian comments sections once in a while, they really do believe this utter garbage.
Never in a million years, to these fucking people, could it be the case that it is actually the obvious lies and general asshattery of left wing politics, that could be the cause of their eternal state of powerlessness.
In a very real sense, control over Wikipedia is their only real power.
Can you imagine anything more depressing? Certainly to people who aspire to control every aspect of everyone's life.
Thatcher killed the unions, Johnson can kill Wikipedia. The difference being, the unions were actually causing real harm to the country. The evidence that anyone actually cares what these dipshit Wikipedia editors do, is thin to say the least.
An encyclopedia that ignores the Mail therefore, for events of this time period, is an encyclopedia that won't be giving an accurate or even honest picture of British history.
Here is a Guardian opinion piece that seeks to criticise a recent Mail story regarding new vaccine effectiveness data.
https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver ... vaccinated
It takes issue with the Mail headline......
......and concludes with this pithy comment:
The coward obviously didn't feel brave enough to say the Mail specifically, even though he started the piece talking about that headline, and didn't mention any other "media".Coverage and effectiveness are important numbers for assessing vaccination programmes. It is better to look at cool analysis by analysts, rather than hot takes on social and other media.
So what's the deal here? Well, we have a Guardian opinion writer trying to deceive people into thinking the Mail doesn't write stories which contain the sober analysis of experts and doesn't get into details like vaccine coverage and effectiveness. Or when they do, they misrepresent them.
Sound familiar? It reads exactly like the anti-Mail propaganda spouted by Wikipedia editors. Which is unsurprising, because the Guardian is their favourite newspaper. It being the only left wing newspaper in Brtiain, at least the only one that doesn't have (too many) media scandals in its history.
Even so, even though Piers Morgan was a past editor of the largest left wing tabloid, The Mirror, until he ran a fake front page story falsely accusing the Army of war crimes, that's still not enough for the Wikipedia community to declare the Mirror to be as bad as if not worse than the Mail. Still think this ban isn't about politics?
But sadly for the Wikipedia editors, as is all too common when it comes to their views of the Mail, reality doesn't match their bullshit. A read of the Mail article reveals it has lots of expert opinion, and does talk about what they think about vaccine effectiveness and coverage.
Because that was, after all, the WHOLE FUCKING POINT of the headline. This was a story written in advance of the Prime Minister having to decide whether to delay the lifting of further restrictions. Which he did indeed, delay. Why? As the report shows, it was because this Delta variant has changed the maths regarding vaccine effectiveness.
It is clear that uppermost in his mind, as reflected by the experts, that even if the vaccine is still somewhat effective, such is the transmissability of this new variant, and given the county isn't completely vaccinated yet, letting it run wild would result in higher deaths.
Not just in those yet to be vaccinated, but deaths of fully vaccinated people. Because, as the report makes clear, in a no shit Sherlock kind of way, the vaccines aren't one hundred percent effective. Contrary to the Guardian's arrogant presumptions, it doesn't need to explain that this means old people are still at highest risk of death, because that is already widely known.
As the opinions in the Mail article also show, this is still not an easy decision. There is a case to be made that says the costs and social harms of not unlocking, outweigh the potential deaths.
This is what irks the left. The Guardian reading class. As the Mail article makes clear, it is their habit, from the comfort of their zoom calls, in their nice houses, with their comfortable work at home full salary, to not consider those people. To blithely assume they can endure such things forever.
The Mail, as you would, expect, gives the full picture.
The Mail, as you would expect, shows that governing is hard. But it is easier when you have the public on your side. But having the majority support you, is still no excuse for screwing over the minority. If the relative handful of deaths of fully vaccinated people is cause to pause further unlocking, and the public supports this, then you need to compensate those business being worst affected.
Wikipedia editors do not want the world to know these things. They don't want the right wing perspective. It presumably pisses them off no end, that the contents of this Mail article, which is by no means unusual, this is a typical Mail article, do not conform their idiotic notions that Brtiain is currently ruled by a lying populist idiotic shitbag, who has the right wing press in his back pocket.
Johnson is not the British Trump. The Mail is not Fox News.
Farage was the British Trump. We don't have Fox News, since they found our Don't Be Lying Bastard laws a little too restrictive (as would Wikipedia, if it were to be reclassified as a media entity). Because of that, and because Britain has a better democracy and a better educated public, and inspite of the American gift to the world of Facebook et al, we were able to deal with our Trump quite effectively.
The left wing Wikipedia editors don't want the world to know these things. It is unacceptable to them that the right wing should be perceived as competent and fit to govern. In contrast to their mythology that "reality has a left wing bias", these days, in functioning democracies at least, reality has a much closer fit to the politics of the day, than left wing fantasies of their own competence.
Had the left won the last election here, which in hindsight really was a ridiculous idea, we would still be in the EU, and so our vaccine rollout would have been just as shit as theirs has been, largely due to the fact the EU is a bloated, undemocratic, power mad bureaucratic clusterfuck.
Which is one of the many reasons Britain voted for Brexit. Years ago now, David Cameron went to Brussels asking for meagre reforms to the EU's glorious vision of "Ever Closer Union" because it was not helping him keep his party together. He asked for stuff that wasn't even close to retaining our independence in matters like medicine approvals, and the right to have first dibs on vaccines produced in British laboratories using British expertise. They told him to get fucked. Brexit was the inevitable consequence. To their great surprise. Arrogance and delusion being a trait of the left.
The left wing Wikipedia editors only want the world to hear from people like this Guardian expert, even though, to my mind, he can't be all that much of an expert......
The less than perfect vaccine he is talking about here, is still effective enough in preventing transmission, to ensure that once everyone has been immunised, you have herd immunity.Consider the hypothetical world where absolutely everyone had received a less than perfect vaccine. Although the death rate would be low, everyone who died would have been fully vaccinated
As of right now, it appears the greatest threat to the traditional right wing base, if recent individual results are to be believed, is the long awaited emergence of the centre party as a political force. And as the saying goes, we will believe it when we see it. Because this would be about the fifth time it has been predicted, only to fall at the alter of the British public realising that a vote for a third party in what is effectively a two party system, is a wasted vote.
The left wants to badly control the narrative on Wikipedia these days however, because this time at least, they can see the danger. They can see that their party is doing so badly, and has seemingly no answers at all, that they really are in danger of becoming the third party. They only won power last time after decades of being the second party, after Tony Blair effectively rebranded them as centrist. There is no such thing in the works now. Labour want to remain the party of grievance and government knows best, and seem content to go down with that ship, to join the Whiggs and the Liberals.
And what better way to control the narrative, than cancel the opposition? Just switch off their mike entirely.
I would be fine with it, if the Wikishits were being honest about their motives. The world has space for a leftist world view encyclopedia. Right wingers are nothing if not lovers of a person's freedom to choose where they get their information. The Mail has to compete on a commercial basis, and it even has to complete with a state funded news provider, which is OK, because the price for state funding is legally ensured neutrality. But they're not. They want people to believe that Mail reports like this, are unreliable. They want people to believe they might be false.
As Guy Macon has inadvertently discovered, because he really is that fucking stupid, this report, like millions before it, is accurate. It is the editorial slant, that is disliked. If it had contained fabricated quotes, if it does contain incorrect figures and claims, we would have heard by now. In large part because the Wikipedia editors would be trumpeting it from the rooftops.
As usual, all they have is criticism of a headline. And dishonest criticism at that.
But welcome to your new reality. The Guardian is a reliable source. The Mail is not. And the country is only governed by an historically strong right wing government, because the public are stupid morons and the Mail makes a profit from lying to them all day every day.
Only the Guardian and their Wikipedia editor fanboys, can see it.
They actually believe this shit. Read the Guardian comments sections once in a while, they really do believe this utter garbage.
Never in a million years, to these fucking people, could it be the case that it is actually the obvious lies and general asshattery of left wing politics, that could be the cause of their eternal state of powerlessness.
In a very real sense, control over Wikipedia is their only real power.
Can you imagine anything more depressing? Certainly to people who aspire to control every aspect of everyone's life.
Thatcher killed the unions, Johnson can kill Wikipedia. The difference being, the unions were actually causing real harm to the country. The evidence that anyone actually cares what these dipshit Wikipedia editors do, is thin to say the least.