• Wikipedia bans using the Daily Mail as a source entirely
    9 replies, posted
[url]https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia-bans-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website[/url] [quote] Wikipedia editors have voted to ban the Daily Mail as a source for the website in all but exceptional circumstances after deeming the news group “generally unreliable”. The move is highly unusual for the online encyclopaedia, which rarely puts in place a blanket ban on publications and which still allows links to sources such as Kremlin backed news organisation Russia Today, and Fox News, both of which have raised concern among editors. The editors described the arguments for a ban as “centred on the Daily Mail’s reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism and flat-out fabrication”. [/quote] Pretty much the worst newspaper in the world, and now you have something to back you up when you say that.
Just like Facepunch.
[QUOTE=Electrocuter;51799518]Just like Facepunch.[/QUOTE] Na Facepunch changed the rules on that recently, doesn't say anything about banned sources anymore, apart from tabloids.
[QUOTE=James xX;51799524]Na Facepunch changed the rules on that recently, doesn't say anything about banned sources anymore, apart from tabloids.[/QUOTE] Daily Mail is a tabloid.
[QUOTE=James xX;51799524]Na Facepunch changed the rules on that recently, doesn't say anything about banned sources anymore, apart from tabloids.[/QUOTE] Sure we have. :evil:
[QUOTE=James xX;51799524]Na Facepunch changed the rules on that recently, doesn't say anything about banned sources anymore, apart from tabloids.[/QUOTE] you're free to use most sources, it's just that with a number of them like dailymail you're best finding second and third sources to make sure it's not editorialized to fuck and back, and just use those sources in its stead. If you can only find a dailymail article on a thing there's likely something wrong. [editline]e[/editline] I see dailymail links as name mentions in the ticker, there's no escape
The Daily Express is even worse and still gets posted here every now and then, and it always takes half a page before the outrage wears off and someone realises the story they've spun in the headline is dogshit
Two threads were just locked recently for using RT. [editline]9th February 2017[/editline] Oh what the mod deleted the post. Hopefully we can get some clarification soon.
[QUOTE=James xX;51799524]Na Facepunch changed the rules on that recently, doesn't say anything about banned sources anymore, apart from tabloids.[/QUOTE] [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1551967"]That's why Tudd's thread was closed for using RT as a source, right?[/URL] (It was reopened, I'm guessing because someone sourced coverage from a more reliable source.) Sgt Doom's post about banning for using only RT as a source was deleted, but I don't know if that was just because the issue was resolved by posting another source, or if the mods' policy has actually changed to allow RT/etc. I'm guessing by [QUOTE=Bradyns;51799548]Sure we have. :evil:[/QUOTE] that it has actually not changed by much. well fuck me I'm late
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;51799637][URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1551967"]That's why Tudd's thread was closed for using RT as a source, right?[/URL] (It was reopened, I'm guessing because someone sourced coverage from a more reliable source.) Sgt Doom's post about banning for using only RT as a source was deleted, but I don't know if that was just because the issue was resolved by posting another source, or if the mods' policy has actually changed to allow RT/etc. I'm guessing by that it has actually not changed by much. well fuck me I'm late[/QUOTE]Resolved by including other sources. Dunno why people wouldn't just use the other sources instead of rt, but w/e. [editline]9th February 2017[/editline] If in doubt, [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Potentially_unreliable_sources]wikipedia's own guidelines[/url] are a good place to start tbh.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.