ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?The problem is that a lot of "reliable sources" don't do their fact-checking properly, so that if someone changes their birth date on, say, ImDb, it can find its way into those "reliable sources" quite quickly. I remember working on one for a middlingly well known celebrity who is quite a private person, where the ImDb change was simply vandalism but it took quite a while to unpick.
Wikipedia is by far the single biggest problem when it comes to lazy journalists taking something from an unreliable source at face value. Even when a five second check would show it was vandalism.
In a mark of what Wikipediocracy has become, it was none other than fellow Wikipedia Administrator (Arbitrator) Beeblebrox who followed up with the first reply.....
Just FUCK OFF already.The issue Black Kite has identified is very real. Maybe if we made sure reporters understood that even Wikipedia won't use IMDB as a source they would cut it out.
These fucking people. Wikipedia told the world that the Daily Mail is "generally unreliable". The world didn't listen. Which is why Wikipedia still hasn't got a reliable source they can use which says, "the Daily Mail is generally unreliable" or words to that effect. And that goes for any source, I'm not even holding them to a high standard and asking them to find the likes of the Columbia Journalism Review saying it.
The Daily Mail ban is a perfect example to show that Wikipedians are often lying pieces of shit whose opinions matter more than facts, if it suits their agenda.
It suits these wankers for the world to think that IMDB is a problematic source of citogenisis polluting the world's information space, not Wikipedia.
It only remains to be seen, why is Jake letting them spread their propaganda on his forum? A place allegedly created to investigate the dangers of Wikipedia to the world.
When the fuck has Wikipedia ever done anything to inform journalists, let alone the public that they are not a reliable source? They call themselves an ENCYCLOPEDIA, and until Wikipedia was created, that word did actually carry the implication that you were reading a reliable source.
Nobody is perfect, but in a reputed encyclopedia, until Wikipedia came along, errors were genuinely errors, things that were entirely unforeseeable, or genuine mistakes.
It's not a genuine mistake or unforeseeable that a birth date of some minor personality on Wikipedia might be wrong, and that may be because they themselves have altered it. It's a FEATURE.
Do they for example have a daily report of biographies where the birthdate has been changed? No. Why not? Because they do not give a shit. They're too busy telling self serving lies on Wikipediocracy, to give a shit.
It's allegedly an ENCYCLOPEDIA. When would anyone ever need or be allowed to change a birth date without the ABSOLUTE reassurance that, I dunno, an EDITOR, maybe even an EDITOR IN CHIEF!?!?!, has looked over the change and satisfied themselves it was warranted?
Hey, Wikipediocracy. How about some pushback on the bullshit boys, eh? You fucking useless bastards.
Some people weren't born yesterday, whatever Wikipedia wants to claim.