CrowsNest wrote:Because........?sashi wrote:I don't think the MediaWatch story makes DM (or Google) look too good.
they -- like Wikipedia -- seem to be getting google juice for free by swiping people's work.
CrowsNest wrote:Because........?sashi wrote:I don't think the MediaWatch story makes DM (or Google) look too good.
As a recognised newspaper with mass readership, they are perfectly entitled to be listed very highly in a search engine. Wikipedia has no such claim to deserve such recognition, and we know out of the two of them, which one gets financial assistance from Google, which one is seen as more of a direct benefit to Google's future existence.sashi wrote:CrowsNest wrote:Because........?sashi wrote:I don't think the MediaWatch story makes DM (or Google) look too good.
they -- like Wikipedia -- seem to be getting google juice for free by swiping people's work.
I cannot believe these people are even allowed access to a computer.This practice raises issues about whether the Daily Mail meets WP:COPYVIOEL. While the site may be complying with the law, stealing the work of other journalists is highly unethical. It also means that the DM is frequently not engaging in collecting news itself, and is at best a tertiary source. Nick-D (talk) 04:36, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Not a vote, yeah? A sage review of everyone's views for levels of clue and evidence, all being weighted to produce a determination of consensus, or lack therefore?Out of 94 !votes so far in the current RfC, 26 !voted to overturn the ban, 68 !voted to uphold the ban. and 1 !voted to retain the ban for everying in the past but to overturn it going forward.
......
--Guy Macon (talk) 21:22, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
This was said just a few lines below Geo Swan's comment, the gist of which was, if we don't need the Mail, why is it still being used as a reference all over Wikipedia? He acknowledges the dirty secret these idiots don't want to - people aren't replacing it because they are not finding any issues with the source, and/or they are failing in the task that pieces of shit like John claimed would be really easy (finding a better source for Mail derived information that Wikipedia doesn't want deleted for lack of sourcing).No -- the bottom line is that we don't need the Daily Mail, and there are enough obvious problems that we lose more than we gain if we go back to using it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:36, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia's own article, of course, doesn't even call the Mail a tabloid in the tabloid journalism sense. Why? Because it cannot reliably source such obvious bollocks. It does call it a tabloid, meaning the format, without making it clear in the text this is the intended meaning of the word. Obviously the goal there is to mislead at least some of the visitors to that article. Dumb Americans no doubt.No'. We don't need Daily Mail or any other tabloid as a source. (I mean tabloid in the sense of tabloid journalism, not the tabloid (newspaper format) size factor). — SMcCandlish 19:34, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Yet another person who wrongly believes reliable sources on Wikipedia have to be unbiased. No evidence provided for the claim it frequently contains fabrication either, nor indeed any attempt to quantify "frequently" so that others might have the first clue what this gimp does consider a reliable source.No - articles still frequently show bias or fabrication although I believe that it is marginally better than a year ago. Many other reliable sources are available, in my opinion the Daily Mail does not qualify as one. Shritwod (talk) 20:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Don't make me laugh.Per WP:IAR we can still include an occasional ref to the occasional well-written and truthful story. If these start becoming more common, we can revist again in a few years. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:47, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
If you are only considering the process and not the people, why was the fact that Peter Hitchins writes for the Daily Mail ever even mentioned during the process of banning him from Wikipedia? It was used as a smear by association, and not one Wikipedia Administrator did anything about it (and it would have been quite difficult to do, since the person who did it was the all-powerful Administrator Guy Chapman, a prominent participant in this so called debate).we are not singling out a journalist, but the news organ they work for. An individual journalist may well be fine, but his work goes through a process before publishing, it is that process that is under doubt. As to a few debatable incidents, people have linked here to them actually being found guilty in the courts, that is not debatable.Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
How are the closers supposed to interpret this idiot's comment? Is such material to be assumed to be reliable, unreliable, or examined to see how much of the wording was changed (per Guy Macon's earlier retarded comment)Anything reported only by the Daily Fail should be treated with the very greatest caution, and absolutely avoided in BLP articles. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
They often do state it, usually alongside the words "According to the Mail". Is that reliable, unreliable, or are you only just learning this is how the media works? I'd love to give you more time to collect your thougths, but you, and all these other fuckwits, have had nearly a month to figure this all out. Guy Macon is eager for closure (and all these late arrivals, all spouting the same ill-informed garbage, has all the hallmarks of him having gone on a mission to round up some last minute support).If something matters, some other more reliable publication will state it. - Sitush (talk) 19:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)