2015 Strategy/Community consultation

[sparkzilla]

I guess you have to ask what a reader is relying on you for. If they want an unbiased encyclopedia and can't rely on a putatively unbiased encyclopedia to be unbiased, then that's not an encyclopedia they can rely on, even if every discrete fact it presents is accurate.

First of all, are we talking about encyclopedia articles, or news articles? All news sources have bias. The issue is that Wikipedia allows contributors to determine the validity of sources, independently of their factual content. For example, The Daily Mail is forbidden for use as a source, even though it contains much factual information, while The Guardian, is allowed as a source -- it contains facts too. A better designed system does not allow users to inject bias in the text, or by omitting or promoting information or choosing sources to suit their bias.

If Wikipedia positioned itself as a supplier of possibly biased assertions, as it rightly should (as Conservapedia honestly presents itself as writing from a Christian fundamentalist viewpoint), even then Wikipedia's neutrality would yet be an element of its unreliablity - because you can't rely on it to always be biased or, when it is biased, to have a predictable slant.

The wiki software allows the most powerful group of users to determine the sources, the facts and the bias. Wikipedia is not neutral, because the people in it are not neutral. It is reliably unreliable, and reliably biased.

[Malleus]

It [Wikipedia] is reliably unreliable, and reliably biased.

That's nonsense. If it was reliably biased then it would be reliably biased in one direction or another. Just like The Daily Mail for instance.

[sparkzilla]

It [Wikipedia] is reliably unreliable, and reliably biased.

That's nonsense. If it was reliably biased then it would be reliably biased in one direction or another. Just like The Daily Mail for instance.

You can be guaranteed of bias on every page, however the direction of the bias depends on the contributors to the page itself.

[Vigilant]

It [Wikipedia] is reliably unreliable, and reliably biased.

That's nonsense. If it was reliably biased then it would be reliably biased in one direction or another. Just like The Daily Mail for instance.

Thus spake the Sith master of stupidity.
Don't you have some stupid article that nobody will read to go work on?

[Malleus]

It [Wikipedia] is reliably unreliable, and reliably biased.

That's nonsense. If it was reliably biased then it would be reliably biased in one direction or another. Just like The Daily Mail for instance.

You can be guaranteed of bias on every page, however the direction of the bias depends on the contributors to the page itself.

That was my point, that it's not reliably biased.

[Vigilant]

It [Wikipedia] is reliably unreliable, and reliably biased.

That's nonsense. If it was reliably biased then it would be reliably biased in one direction or another. Just like The Daily Mail for instance.

You can be guaranteed of bias on every page, however the direction of the bias depends on the contributors to the page itself.

That was my point, that it's not reliably biased.

Who can understand what the fuck you mean when you're so obviously hammered?

[Triptych]

It [Wikipedia] is reliably unreliable, and reliably biased.

That's nonsense. If it was reliably biased then it would be reliably biased in one direction or another. Just like The Daily Mail for instance.

How do you mean The Mail is biased? It seems neither left nor right to me. It's sensationalized, but one doesn't really say "biased to the sensational."

[eagle]

But yes, in the case of Conservapedia, The Guardian, Fox, etc., you can generally rely on them to present a consistent slant.

Actually, you can rely upon Conservapedia to present a consistently harsh criticism of Wikipedia. They have been doing it longer than has Wikipedocracy, so they might overemphasize "the Seigenthaler scandal" and the "The Wordbomb Saga". Criticism of Wikipedia is one of the major draws to the site, with 2,168,081 page views of "Wikipedia" and 1,605,696 page views of "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia".

[Poetlister]

How do you mean The Mail is biased? It seems neither left nor right to me. It's sensationalized, but one doesn't really say "biased to the sensational."

It's consistently to the right of every other national newspaper.

[Jim]

How do you mean The Mail is biased? It seems neither left nor right to me. It's sensationalized, but one doesn't really say "biased to the sensational."

It's consistently to the right of every other national newspaper.

I thought that was well known.

[Anroth]

It is well known if you have half a brain.

^^^

[sparkzilla]

It's consistently to the right of every other national newspaper.

Maybe all the others are consistently to the left

[MMAR]

Bias is the least of the things to worry about re. the Daily Mail. Rather than being a newspaper, they're more like a right wing agenda driver - the editor there doesn't select his front page based on what's happening in the world, he selects it based on what the proprietor wants the nation to be talking about that day. It's a quite insidious form of mind control, but is successful because most people who buy this particular 'newspaper' are naive idiots. Hence why it remains a top selling paper, despite the fact that the internet is awash with memes about how biased/untruthful it often is.

[collect]

Bias is the least of the things to worry about re. the Daily Mail. Rather than being a newspaper, they're more like a right wing agenda driver - the editor there doesn't select his front page based on what's happening in the world, he selects it based on what the proprietor wants the nation to be talking about that day. It's a quite insidious form of mind control, but is successful because most people who buy this particular 'newspaper' are naive idiots. Hence why it remains a top selling paper, despite the fact that the internet is awash with memes about how biased/untruthful it often is.

Actually its main "sins" are related to "celebrity news and gossip" for which all sources are pretty poor at best. Those who regard it as neo-Nazi etc. are about as far off the mark as possible (and generally based on the person's own biases as much or more as the DM's) - even the Guardian has been found to run grossly inaccurate stories, and the studies about using press releases in a time of tremendous reductions in staffing across all print media are clear that the major problem the media now face is the reliance on press releases instead of actual journalism (the best studies measure use of press releases for science and medical studies - and most of the errors are found in the press releases given to the media!)

Modern newspapers across the board no longer do any independent fact checking of stories, nor even any actual proofreading (vide major media headlines about an "amphibious pitcher" in baseball.)

[Anroth]

It's consistently to the right of every other national newspaper.

Maybe all the others are consistently to the left

Dont start, I had to listen to someone earlier who insisted that Corbyn was centrist-left, the Blairites were hard right, and that all tories are fascists.

If he hadnt been a member of my wife's family there would have been words.

[collect]

WMF asked for input.

They got thousands of replies ("forest")

They did what "report generating software" does best - count the trees and make a series of slides.

They did not bother to examine the trees to see if some actual solid (non-statistical stuff) could be gleaned - the trees might well have enough to build something substantial for the future, but merely generating (pages of statistics) is a pointless exercise.

[sparkzilla]

I had to listen to someone earlier who insisted that Corbyn was centrist-left, the Blairites were hard right, and that all tories are fascists.

Welcome to New Britain.

[MMAR]

Bias is the least of the things to worry about re. the Daily Mail. Rather than being a newspaper, they're more like a right wing agenda driver - the editor there doesn't select his front page based on what's happening in the world, he selects it based on what the proprietor wants the nation to be talking about that day. It's a quite insidious form of mind control, but is successful because most people who buy this particular 'newspaper' are naive idiots. Hence why it remains a top selling paper, despite the fact that the internet is awash with memes about how biased/untruthful it often is.

Actually its main "sins" are related to "celebrity news and gossip" for which all sources are pretty poor at best. Those who regard it as neo-Nazi etc. are about as far off the mark as possible (and generally based on the person's own biases as much or more as the DM's) - even the Guardian has been found to run grossly inaccurate stories, and the studies about using press releases in a time of tremendous reductions in staffing across all print media are clear that the major problem the media now face is the reliance on press releases instead of actual journalism (the best studies measure use of press releases for science and medical studies - and most of the errors are found in the press releases given to the media!)

Modern newspapers across the board no longer do any independent fact checking of stories, nor even any actual proofreading (vide major media headlines about an "amphibious pitcher" in baseball.)

What on Earth are you on about? How is being an outlet for celebrity gossip worse than the paper running a front page story on Sunday about how Britain is 'full' just because the proprietor told the editor that was what the agenda should be for the coming week? There's no comparison between what that really is, which is not journalism in any way, shape or form, and the business of basic errors in journalism.

[Poetlister]

At least the Daily Mail no longer overtly praises Nazi sympathisers, as it did in 1934.

[collect]

At least the Daily Mail no longer overtly praises Nazi sympathisers, as it did in 1934.

Proof that a newspaper position from more than 80 years ago is relevant - really? You should also note that very shortly after that, the Daily Mail specifically distanced itself from the British Fascists.

See also http://www.pcc.org.uk/cases/adjudicated ... e=OTA2Mg== where a complaint against The Guardian was upheld less than two years ago:

"Under Clause 1 of the Editors' Code of Practice, however, the press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, and it must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact. The newspaper had explained in correspondence with the Commission that it was difficult to be "definitive" about the complainant's role, but it had published three items - a news report, a profile, and an editorial - which had contained serious overstatements, presented as fact, on this issue."

"The Commission acknowledged the newspaper's early recognition that remedial action was necessary. The wording it had ultimately offered corrected the position and included an appropriate apology. This was a particularly concerning case, however: the inaccuracies were central to the reporting; they appeared across all three items; and they directly contributed to the newspaper's criticisms of the nature of the complainant's role and his personal suitability to fill it. The Commission upheld the complaint."

So much for the infallibility of The Guardian, I fear.


http://www.theguardian.com/media/greens ... ald-mosley


The Guardian columnist Roy Greenslade:

"One of the things that always makes me furious is the knee-jerk stupidity of saying that the Daily Mail used to support fascism, thereby implying that it is somehow tainted goods in its modern form."

" Harold's son, Esmond (Rothermere the Second) assumed control of the Mail before Harold died in 1940. Its coverage from the outbreak of war the year before reveals not a scintilla of support for Hitler."

"It is also important to view Harold's misguided views through the prism of widespread support for appeasement, not least from The Times under the editorship of Geoffrey Dawson and, of course, many leading politicians."

"Lastly, it is also the case that the Mail of the 1930s was not nearly as influential as the Daily Express and its owner, Lord Beaverbrook."

"And it was the Express, in March 1933, that ran a splash headlined "Judea declares war on Germany: Jews of all the world unite in action". "



FWIW, the US Ambassador to Germany in 1938 --- attended the Nazi Party congress in Nuremberg.

[Poetlister]

Proof that a newspaper position from more than 80 years ago is relevant - really? You should also note that very shortly after that, the Daily Mail specifically distanced itself from the British Fascists.

The current proprietor is a direct descendant of the then proprietor and author of that article. And if you say that a man is not responsible for the behaviour of his ancestors, the Daily Mail would firmly disagree.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -LEVY.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... ogise.html

[collect]

Proof that a newspaper position from more than 80 years ago is relevant - really? You should also note that very shortly after that, the Daily Mail specifically distanced itself from the British Fascists.

The current proprietor is a direct descendant of the then proprietor and author of that article. And if you say that a man is not responsible for the behaviour of his ancestors, the Daily Mail would firmly disagree.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -LEVY.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... ogise.html

I suggest you read Greenslade's column. And note that trollery ill-suits a normal discussion venue.

[Poetlister]

I suggest you read Greenslade's column. And note that trollery ill-suits a normal discussion venue.

I invite everyone to read my links.

[collect]

I suggest you read Greenslade's column. And note that trollery ill-suits a normal discussion venue.

I invite everyone to read my links.

Yep - The Daily Mail biographical article on Milliband's father states:

"Having read the manuscript before publication, David wrote to his father asking, 'whether you are restating a case that has been traduced in theory or practice, or whether you are advancing a new case. I think that the book reads like the former . . .' "

Geoffrey Levy wrote what appears to be a balanced and accurate account of the father's positions, and does not ascribe, for example, of the father's eventual condemning of Stalinism as being the position of the children. It certainly does not assert "blood guilt" on the children, for sure.

Your second example (allowing you to call the first one an "example" of much at all) is the newspaper editorial refusing to retract the biographical article. Period. The NYT has done much the same thing -- and Wikipedia is currently labelling Donald Trump virtually a "Don" in the Mafia.


Yet you think a great- grandchild who pretty certainly never even saw his great-grandfather (being born some 27 years after the first Lord Rothermere's death), is fair game? Interesting dichotomy that. Sorry -- you are stretching that bungee cord pas a breaking point.



"Although disputed by the Trump companies,[citation needed] Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist David Cay Johnston as well as investigative journalist Wayne Barrett, who wrote an unauthorized 1992 Trump biography, have alleged that Trump and his companies did business with New York and Philadelphia families linked to the Italian-American Mafia.[259][260] They claim Trump purchased the future site of Atlantic City's Trump Plaza for twice its market value from noted Philadelphia crime family member Salvatore Testa, and according to the State of New Jersey Commission of Investigation's 1986 report on organized crime, constructed the casino using two firms controlled by Nicodemo Scarfo.[260] Although Trump was a federal target in a 1979 bribery investigation, and later questioned in a 1981 racketeering probe, neither investigation resulted in criminal charges.[260] Trump was criticized for omitting mention of that investigation in his New Jersey casino license application, and Johnston alleged that he had persuaded state officials to limit his background investigation.[259] In addition, Johnston claimed that Trump Tower and other New York City properties were constructed with concrete from a firm owned by Anthony Salerno, head of the Genovese crime family, and "Big Paul" Castellano, head of the Gambino crime family.[259]

"According to investigative journalist John Sweeney, Trump walked out of a BBC Panorama interview with him after Sweeney asked why Trump continued to do business with Felix Sater, an ex-convict who identified himself a "senior advisor to Donald Trump" (a claim disputed by Trump's representatives), after Sater's mafia and Russian criminal ties, as well as a 1998 racketeering conviction, were publicly reported.[261][262][263] Sater has partnered with Trump on multiple real estate name-licensing ventures, including at least two which have gone into foreclosure.[52]


Care to defend that piece of encyclopedia "journalism"?


The Daily Mail is frequently a paragon when compared to what passes for "reliably sourced" innuendo and guilt-by-association claims so often found in the crowdsourced jungle.



e.g. the "facts" about the Koch family from an article talk page:

"I may have missed it, but I'm surprised there's no mention of the Koch family's strong Nazi ties. I believe the matter is definitely relevant and should be included in the article.

"Notorious Nazis Ilse Koch, her husband Karl Otto Koch and Erich Koch are the ghost of Koch Industries the U.S. conservative political agenda years ago and seem capable of seizing the government in total through the Tea Party." [[1]]

Ilse Koch, "The Bitch of Buchenwald"

"While Karl Otto was known for his personal greed in the camps he worked in, Ilse was known as the 'Bitch of Buchenwald' for her bestial cruelty and sadistic behavior. She was especially fond of riding her horse through the camp, whipping any prisoner who attracted her attention. Her hobby was collecting lampshades, book covers, and gloves made from the skins of specially murdered concentration camp inmates, and shrunken human skulls...."

"It is more interesting that Frau Koch had a lady's handbag made out of the same material [human skin]." [[2]] deeceevoice (talk) 10:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)



Your comments on those "facts"?

[Poetlister]

This is really going off-topic and mods may want to split the thread. However, according to my first link, the Daily mail says that Ed Miliband was a danger to this country because he was the son of a man who, at the age of 17, said 'The Englishman is a rabid nationalist. They are perhaps the most nationalist people in the world . . . you sometimes want them almost to lose (the war) to show them how things are. They have the greatest contempt for the Continent . . . To lose their empire would be the worst possible humiliation.' I don't know if you have dealt with any 17 year olds lately; they say all sorts of nonsense. Yet Ed, who has never been on record as saying anything of the kind, is held responsible for what his father said 29 years before he was born. So, if you accept that logic (and of course I do not), why should not the current lord Rothermere equally be held responsible for things his ancestor (who was then a mature man and a successful businessman, not a schoolboy) said before he was born? You can't have it both ways.

I can't see what the Trump case has to do with this.

[collect]

This is really going off-topic and mods may want to split the thread. However, according to my first link, the Daily mail says that Ed Miliband was a danger to this country because he was the son of a man who, at the age of 17, said 'The Englishman is a rabid nationalist. They are perhaps the most nationalist people in the world . . . you sometimes want them almost to lose (the war) to show them how things are. They have the greatest contempt for the Continent . . . To lose their empire would be the worst possible humiliation.' I don't know if you have dealt with any 17 year olds lately; they say all sorts of nonsense. Yet Ed, who has never been on record as saying anything of the kind, is held responsible for what his father said 29 years before he was born. So, if you accept that logic (and of course I do not), why should not the current lord Rothermere equally be held responsible for things his ancestor (who was then a mature man and a successful businessman, not a schoolboy) said before he was born? You can't have it both ways.

I can't see what the Trump case has to do with this.

The DM material ascribed nothing to Milliband other than his own words, and his father's words to his father - whilst the Rothermere haters seem to wish to place a great-grandfather's positions into the great-grandson's mouth <g>, and to ascribe words from eighty years ago to a current newspaper implying it is an ongoing opinion of such a newspaper.

[Poetlister]

This is turning into a good parody of a Wikipedia discussion.

[Anthonyhcole]

Nothing on page 2 is on-topic.