Wikipedia founder confronted over banning Daily Mail

[Ca$hBag]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKo8xh0NK-A

[thekohser]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKo8xh0NK-A

I haven't seen a more uncomfortable interview subject since Sue Gardner had to go on CNET in 2008 to defend why Jimmy Wales submitted a Moscow massage parlor receipt to the Wikimedia Foundation for reimbursement. Too bad CNET took down the video, because it was a triumph of journalism.

[Kingsindian]

When I read over/watched interviews with Katherine Maher while writing the blog post, I noticed that she was often asked about the Daily Mail stuff and she was distinctly uncomfortable with it. She said various things like "it's very rare that an outlet is banned outright" and "it's by the community and we don't have anything to do with it", which is basically true, but kinda embarrassing nonetheless.

[Poetlister]

When I read over/watched interviews with Katherine Maher while writing the blog post, I noticed that she was often asked about the Daily Mail stuff and she was distinctly uncomfortable with it. She said various things like "it's very rare that an outlet is banned outright" and "it's by the community and we don't have anything to do with it", which is basically true, but kinda embarrassing nonetheless.

If the powers that be wanted to overturn it, surely it would be easy enough to argue that such an important issue requires broader discussion than it received. There would be a fresh discussion when al sorts of heavyweights would contribute in a personal capacity, and an ArbCom member would close it as he or she thought fit.

[Randy from Boise]

Nah, En-WP got it right.

RfB

[Poetlister]

Nah, En-WP got it right.

RfB

Obviously, the Daily Mail is right of centre by British standards so it can't be reliable.

[Randy from Boise]

Nah, En-WP got it right.

RfB

Obviously, the Daily Mail is right of centre by British standards so it can't be reliable.

It's not a real newspaper, much as the National Enquirer is not a real newspaper in the USA. Oh, wait, that one's right wing also — so you must like it as well, eh?

RfB

[Graaf Statler]

When I read over/watched interviews with Katherine Maher while writing the blog post, I noticed that she was often asked about the Daily Mail stuff and she was distinctly uncomfortable with it. She said various things like "it's very rare that an outlet is banned outright" and "it's by the community and we don't have anything to do with it", which is basically true, but kinda embarrassing nonetheless.

What I notice is if Isabel Oakeshott is asking the right questions, Jimmy can't give one single answer. And madam Oakeshott is my hero, because she is the first journalist I have seen who is interviewing Jimmy in the right way, critical and confrontational with facts.
And Maher every time gets away in interviews with here giggling o I am a hippie girl and we are a volunteer organisation act.
What is not true, it's pure business for many people. In particular journalists have to understand madam Maher is the executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation who earns 250 K a year, and WMF a organisation is with 100 million dollars cash. And they also have to understand Maher is not the spokesman of a hippie community who is sitting in a tree to save it.

[dogbiscuit]

The problem with newspaper sources is:

a) across the board they are not an encyclopedic view of the world. You wouldn't really write an encyclopedia based on press cuttings but often that is all the editors have access to.

b) the editors are almost rule-bound not to assess the quality of the resource - the hopefully now discredited Verification not Truth, which ended as a policy that produced neither.

The whole concept is so badly implemented it is not surprising that Jimbo fails to be able to defend it with anyone who has a rudimentary understanding of how it really works.

Heavily edited, so I didn't get the sense of how the interview went as a whole, but some lovely contradictions with Jimbo both saying that the Daily Mail is rubbish and a wonderful publication, fishing around for an exit in a corner.

[Ming]

Well, perhaps she didn't know that the Ming or anyone else can go back and look at her article and see what it actually said at the time, and see that it didn't say what she claimed.

The version of 15 April 2017, which is what prevailed at the time of the interview, actually did not say that she was "political editor at the Daily Mail"; it said "having previously worked for .... the Daily Mail". And the ultimate source of that claim is her, cited to the alumni bio she supplied for the University of Bristol. The same sentence is in the 17 January version. Perhaps she meant some other year; Ming isn't willing to fact-check her that far. Ming is more inclined to choose between (a) she can't read, which is a serious failing in a journalist, or (b) she's misrepresenting things, and thus creating fake news.

It would have been hilarious to see Jimbo take her down on air by looking this up (they wouldn't have given him the time, though-- it did take Ming more that 15 seconds) but you have to think that it didn't occur to him.

As far as WP banning the DM: Jimbo needs to come up with the testicular fortitude to defer to the editors. And wanna guess which newspaper was just about the only one to endorse Trump? Enquiring minds want to know.

[Graaf Statler]

The problem with newspaper sources is:

a) across the board they are not an encyclopedic view of the world. You wouldn't really write an encyclopedia based on press cuttings but often that is all the editors have access to.

b) the editors are almost rule-bound not to assess the quality of the resource - the hopefully now discredited Verification not Truth, which ended as a policy that produced neither.

The whole concept is so badly implemented it is not surprising that Jimbo fails to be able to defend it with anyone who has a rudimentary understanding of how it really works.

Heavily edited, so I didn't get the sense of how the interview went as a whole, but some lovely contradictions with Jimbo both saying that the Daily Mail is rubbish and a wonderful publication, fishing around for an exit in a corner.

I think it is almost impossible to write for instance a article about Greek politics and the euro crisis without using newspaper sources, but you have to know were you are talking about. That was the reason I wrote first this analysis (robot). And as you can see it had 13,296 hits on the total unknown Wiki of Guido den Broeder, were I wrote it because I was as usually eternally blocked on WP-NL.

And whit this base, my knowledge about Greece and the reason of the Euro crisis, I wrote my articles by using (Greek) newspaper sources. But I made a selection out of different sources and not by exclude some newspapers or other sources like Wikipedia seems to do now. And later almost every newspaper in Holland used my articles as there source, because nobody knew anything of Greece politics. My articles had ten thousands hits in that time, but that is a other story.

[Poetlister]

It's not a real newspaper, much as the National Enquirer is not a real newspaper in the USA. Oh, wait, that one's right wing also — so you must like it as well, eh?

RfB

I don't have a high regard for the Daily Mail, but to compare it to the National Enquirer is so absurd that I assume you meant that as sarcasm. Or are you just blindly sticking to Wikipedia policy?

[Randy from Boise]

It's not a real newspaper, much as the National Enquirer is not a real newspaper in the USA. Oh, wait, that one's right wing also — so you must like it as well, eh?

RfB

I don't have a high regard for the Daily Mail, but to compare it to the National Enquirer is so absurd that I assume you meant that as sarcasm. Or are you just blindly sticking to Wikipedia policy?

Let's see how absurd I am being... From today's UK web edition...

BREAKING NEWS: X Factor millionaire Simon Cowell is stretchered out of his house wearing a neck brace after falling down the stairs at his London home
Read more: linkhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... pital.html[/link]

Up to her old tricks? Taylor Swift shocks fans as she turns nude cyborg in full ...Ready For It? video... as fans go wild over Calvin Harris references
Read more: linkhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/ar ... video.html[/link]

Brexit ministry loses another minister as Baroness Anelay resigns and blames a worsening injury she sustained when she fell out of a Black Hawk HELICOPTER two years ago
Read more: linkhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... tment.html[/link]

Wife whose husband is accused of trying to kill her by tampering with her parachute tells court he barely visited her in hospital after and refused to say he loved her
Read more: linkhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... pital.html[/link]

Teenager, 18, is charged with murder following the death of a 47-year-old nurse who was showered with ACID after a bottle was kicked at her as she sat on a bench
Read more: linkhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ttack.html[/link]

And so on and so forth. That is just TODAY (Oct. 27, 2017) from the front page of this outstanding "newspaper."

Let me repeat myself for emphasis: The Daily Mail is the same exact thing as the National fucking Enquirer in the United States and is similarly not suitable for use as a source for anything BLP-related at Wikipedia.

RfB

[Graaf Statler]

It's not a real newspaper, much as the National Enquirer is not a real newspaper in the USA. Oh, wait, that one's right wing also — so you must like it as well, eh?

RfB

I don't have a high regard for the Daily Mail, but to compare it to the National Enquirer is so absurd that I assume you meant that as sarcasm. Or are you just blindly sticking to Wikipedia policy?

Let's see how absurd I am being... From today's UK web edition...

BREAKING NEWS: X Factor millionaire Simon Cowell is stretchered out of his house wearing a neck brace after falling down the stairs at his London home
Read more: linkhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... pital.html[/link]

Up to her old tricks? Taylor Swift shocks fans as she turns nude cyborg in full ...Ready For It? video... as fans go wild over Calvin Harris references
Read more: linkhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/ar ... video.html[/link]

Brexit ministry loses another minister as Baroness Anelay resigns and blames a worsening injury she sustained when she fell out of a Black Hawk HELICOPTER two years ago
Read more: linkhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... tment.html[/link]

Wife whose husband is accused of trying to kill her by tampering with her parachute tells court he barely visited her in hospital after and refused to say he loved her
Read more: linkhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... pital.html[/link]

Teenager, 18, is charged with murder following the death of a 47-year-old nurse who was showered with ACID after a bottle was kicked at her as she sat on a bench
Read more: linkhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ttack.html[/link]

And so on and so forth. That is just TODAY (Oct. 27, 2017) from the front page of this outstanding "newspaper."

Let me repeat myself for emphasis: The Daily Mail is the same exact thing as the National fucking Enquirer in the United States and is similarly not suitable for use as a source for anything BLP-related at Wikipedia.

RfB

I completely agree with you, but this has nothing with the Daily Mail to do, but everything with Wiki editors who doesn't know were they are writing about! Because, what is called quality newspapers from time to time are write complete nonsens too. The problem is people who doesn't know something about a subject who are Wiki articles! That is the problem!

[dogbiscuit]

The problem with newspaper sources is:

a) across the board they are not an encyclopedic view of the world. You wouldn't really write an encyclopedia based on press cuttings but often that is all the editors have access to.

b) the editors are almost rule-bound not to assess the quality of the resource - the hopefully now discredited Verification not Truth, which ended as a policy that produced neither.

The whole concept is so badly implemented it is not surprising that Jimbo fails to be able to defend it with anyone who has a rudimentary understanding of how it really works.

Heavily edited, so I didn't get the sense of how the interview went as a whole, but some lovely contradictions with Jimbo both saying that the Daily Mail is rubbish and a wonderful publication, fishing around for an exit in a corner.

I think it is almost impossible to write for instance a article about Greek politics and the euro crisis without using newspaper sources, but you have to know were you are talking about. That was the reason I wrote first this analysis (robot). And as you can see it had 13,296 hits on the total unknown Wiki of Guido den Broeder, were I wrote it because I was as usually eternally blocked on WP-NL.

And whit this base, my knowledge about Greece and the reason of the Euro crisis, I wrote my articles by using (Greek) newspaper sources. But I made a selection out of different sources and not by exclude some newspapers or other sources like Wikipedia seems to do now. And later almost every newspaper in Holland used my articles as there source, because nobody knew anything of Greece politics. My articles had ten thousands hits in that time, but that is a other story.

Hmm. I think that would be my point. A Wikipedian might see that as the only sources that they have, but then you are writing to a set of sources that have filtered the information to suit an audience which is not an encyclopedic audience.

In the UK, would you use the Times and/or Guardian to find out what was said in a parliamentary debate about Brexit or would you go to Hansard to find out what was actually said and in what context? Wouldn't a proper encyclopedia seek out academic views. Knowing that even a supposed "quality paper" like those examples have an agenda, I don't see how you get to the core facts from agenda-driven summaries. The additional problem with political stories is that the newspapers don't seem to report facts but instead are driven by briefings and press releases.

[Poetlister]

Let's see how absurd I am being... From today's UK web edition...

Every story there is basically true, even if it is reported in a tabloid way. Are you telling me that every story in the National Enquirer is basically true?

[Graaf Statler]

The problem with newspaper sources is:

a) across the board they are not an encyclopedic view of the world. You wouldn't really write an encyclopedia based on press cuttings but often that is all the editors have access to.

b) the editors are almost rule-bound not to assess the quality of the resource - the hopefully now discredited Verification not Truth, which ended as a policy that produced neither.

The whole concept is so badly implemented it is not surprising that Jimbo fails to be able to defend it with anyone who has a rudimentary understanding of how it really works.

Heavily edited, so I didn't get the sense of how the interview went as a whole, but some lovely contradictions with Jimbo both saying that the Daily Mail is rubbish and a wonderful publication, fishing around for an exit in a corner.

I think it is almost impossible to write for instance a article about Greek politics and the euro crisis without using newspaper sources, but you have to know were you are talking about. That was the reason I wrote first this analysis (robot). And as you can see it had 13,296 hits on the total unknown Wiki of Guido den Broeder, were I wrote it because I was as usually eternally blocked on WP-NL.

And whit this base, my knowledge about Greece and the reason of the Euro crisis, I wrote my articles by using (Greek) newspaper sources. But I made a selection out of different sources and not by exclude some newspapers or other sources like Wikipedia seems to do now. And later almost every newspaper in Holland used my articles as there source, because nobody knew anything of Greece politics. My articles had ten thousands hits in that time, but that is a other story.

Hmm. I think that would be my point. A Wikipedian might see that as the only sources that they have, but then you are writing to a set of sources that have filtered the information to suit an audience which is not an encyclopedic audience.

In the UK, would you use the Times and/or Guardian to find out what was said in a parliamentary debate about Brexit or would you go to Hansard to find out what was actually said and in what context? Wouldn't a proper encyclopedia seek out academic views. Knowing that even a supposed "quality paper" like those examples have an agenda, I don't see how you get to the core facts from agenda-driven summaries. The additional problem with political stories is that the newspapers don't seem to report facts but instead are driven by briefings and press releases.

I get your point, but in that case you shouldn't write at all about political thema's. There were in that time no better sources. Everybody was looking for information, it was chaos.That euro crisis came out of the blue, I was one of the very few people who understood what happend, because I was a participant on the blog from the total unknown Varoufakis and speak Greek, so I understood the news on the Greek television. I wrote the article about Varoufakis in 2011! Greece and the Balkan are not the regions of reliable sources. And this is a discussion I also had in the past, there are often no academic sources. And if they exist, i am afraid they are composed in the same way I did. Were else should you find information is such a situation? The politicians were confused, the economists were confused, it was a crisis.

[Randy from Boise]

Let's see how absurd I am being... From today's UK web edition...

Every story there is basically true, even if it is reported in a tabloid way. Are you telling me that every story in the National Enquirer is basically true?

I admire your fighting for your ridiculous thesis that the Daily Mail is a suitable source for BLP on Wikipedia to the last ditch... You've got team spirit!

RfB

[Kingsindian]

One important point is that Wikipedia not only uses the concept "reliable source" to say whether something is true or not, but also uses it to establish "notability" of a topic, and UNDUE/NPOV coverage within an article. So, if the Daily Mail and other tabloids were not held in a bit of snobbish contempt on Wikipedia, there would be lower barriers to all sorts of celebrity-style news on Wikipedia.

[Graaf Statler]

One important point is that Wikipedia not only uses the concept "reliable source" to say whether something is true or not, but also uses it to establish "notability" of a topic, and UNDUE/NPOV coverage within an article. So, if the Daily Mail and other tabloids were not held in a bit of snobbish contempt on Wikipedia, there would be lower barriers to all sorts of celebrity-style news on Wikipedia.

Thank you for sharing this very interesting vision, Kingindian. Because, in general Wikipedians don't read a source, they just copy a few thinks, most times thinks what noting have to do with the source. Sources on WP-NL are most times a kind of a vase of flowers on the table. But your explanation makes me a lot clear to me about sources on WP.

[dogbiscuit]

I get your point, but in that case you shouldn't write at all about political thema's. There were in that time no better sources. Everybody was looking for information, it was chaos.That euro crisis came out of the blue, I was one of the very few people who understood what happend, because I was a participant on the blog from the total unknown Varoufakis and speak Greek, so I understood the news on the Greek television. I wrote the article about Varoufakis in 2011! Greece and the Balkan are not the regions of reliable sources. And this is a discussion I also had in the past, there are often no academic sources. And if they exist, i am afraid they are composed in the same way I did. Were else should you find information is such a situation? The politicians were confused, the economists were confused, it was a crisis.

Looking at the current Catalan situation, this is something Wikipedia cannot write about based on press. The press are writing about what they see happening but to write about the International response of the EU for example you need not just to document what was said but explain the treaties and principles behind that response (for example the influence of the Northern Ireland situation of the 1970s in the processes of recognition of states within the EU) - that doesn't exist in the press coverage I've seen. Even Brexit logic impacts on coverage - in the UK the public equating of a vote being equivalent to a complete democratic process.

Anyway, the fundamental is that if you can't write a complete and fair article based on available sources to you then the article shouldn't exist because it just becomes further misinformation on the subject. The Wikipedian logic is there has to be an article and not to care whether it is a educator experience for the reader as long as there is a tick box of someone else to blame. It is important to get these things right when you realise the great unwashed are digesting Wikipedia without critical thought.

[Graaf Statler]

I get your point, but in that case you shouldn't write at all about political thema's. There were in that time no better sources. Everybody was looking for information, it was chaos.That euro crisis came out of the blue, I was one of the very few people who understood what happend, because I was a participant on the blog from the total unknown Varoufakis and speak Greek, so I understood the news on the Greek television. I wrote the article about Varoufakis in 2011! Greece and the Balkan are not the regions of reliable sources. And this is a discussion I also had in the past, there are often no academic sources. And if they exist, i am afraid they are composed in the same way I did. Were else should you find information is such a situation? The politicians were confused, the economists were confused, it was a crisis.

Looking at the current Catalan situation, this is something Wikipedia cannot write about based on press. The press are writing about what they see happening but to write about the International response of the EU for example you need not just to document what was said but explain the treaties and principles behind that response (for example the influence of the Northern Ireland situation of the 1970s in the processes of recognition of states within the EU) - that doesn't exist in the press coverage I've seen. Even Brexit logic impacts on coverage - in the UK the public equating of a vote being equivalent to a complete democratic process.

Anyway, the fundamental is that if you can't write a complete and fair article based on available sources to you then the article shouldn't exist because it just becomes further misinformation on the subject. The Wikipedian logic is there has to be an article and not to care whether it is a educator experience for the reader as long as there is a tick box of someone else to blame. It is important to get these things right when you realise the great unwashed are digesting Wikipedia without critical thought.

I think we are talking about two things. I am talking about using newspapers as a source of facts, and you as a source of analyzes. I made my one analyzes, using the facts out of newspapers, but in fact that is against the rules of Wikipedia. No original research. And I think that is one of the problems of Wikipedia....

[Graaf Statler]

If you look here (robot) I am not blocked infinite because my work is copyvio what Ymnes is claiming. The only reason what is given in this troll request is, is that my work is original research! What is true! And later I was global locked and blocked. Of course not for my behavior, whit my behavior is nothing wrong. And cross wiki vandalism is complete nonsense too of course.

[thekohser]

Let's see how absurd I am being... From today's UK web edition...

Every story there is basically true, even if it is reported in a tabloid way. Are you telling me that every story in the National Enquirer is basically true?

I admire your fighting for your ridiculous thesis that the Daily Mail is a suitable source for BLP on Wikipedia to the last ditch... You've got team spirit!

You moved the goal posts, Randy. That's a penalty, and Poetlister wins.

While the Daily Mail falls down in so, so many different areas, the fact remains that it does occasionally break news that ends up having encyclopedic importance. (For example.)

[dogbiscuit]

I get your point, but in that case you shouldn't write at all about political thema's. There were in that time no better sources. Everybody was looking for information, it was chaos.That euro crisis came out of the blue, I was one of the very few people who understood what happend, because I was a participant on the blog from the total unknown Varoufakis and speak Greek, so I understood the news on the Greek television. I wrote the article about Varoufakis in 2011! Greece and the Balkan are not the regions of reliable sources. And this is a discussion I also had in the past, there are often no academic sources. And if they exist, i am afraid they are composed in the same way I did. Were else should you find information is such a situation? The politicians were confused, the economists were confused, it was a crisis.

Looking at the current Catalan situation, this is something Wikipedia cannot write about based on press. The press are writing about what they see happening but to write about the International response of the EU for example you need not just to document what was said but explain the treaties and principles behind that response (for example the influence of the Northern Ireland situation of the 1970s in the processes of recognition of states within the EU) - that doesn't exist in the press coverage I've seen. Even Brexit logic impacts on coverage - in the UK the public equating of a vote being equivalent to a complete democratic process.

Anyway, the fundamental is that if you can't write a complete and fair article based on available sources to you then the article shouldn't exist because it just becomes further misinformation on the subject. The Wikipedian logic is there has to be an article and not to care whether it is a educator experience for the reader as long as there is a tick box of someone else to blame. It is important to get these things right when you realise the great unwashed are digesting Wikipedia without critical thought.

I think we are talking about two things. I am talking about using newspapers as a source of facts, and you as a source of analyzes. I made my one analyzes, using the facts out of newspapers, but in fact that is against the rules of Wikipedia. No original research. And I think that is one of the problems of Wikipedia....

I think we are now homing in on the issue - a list of facts is not an encyclopedic treatment, an encyclopedic article should be a summary of understanding of the topic. So there is the fact that JFK got shot, but then there is the blur of alleged conspiracy, fact, and speculation that surrounds it. The conspiracy theories are in turn "facts" that have evolved over time.

Without an element of analysis, presenting facts cannot be information, it is simply data. We cannot trust a newspaper analysis because it is based on incomplete facts, typically a hurried response to a current event, and then with its goldfish memory the press moves on to the next story.

Wikipedia isn't that bad in the scheme of things, but in the context of an increasingly proud to be ignorant public ("I don't care about the facts, it's my opinion and it's my right to hold it." to quote one person I ran across in social media) it is a slippery slope and to build a product that does not ultimately try and be the most informative that it can be is playing into the hands of the ignorant. The victors get to write the history, and in the modern world it is the ignorant who are winning.

[Graaf Statler]

I get your point, but in that case you shouldn't write at all about political thema's. There were in that time no better sources. Everybody was looking for information, it was chaos.That euro crisis came out of the blue, I was one of the very few people who understood what happend, because I was a participant on the blog from the total unknown Varoufakis and speak Greek, so I understood the news on the Greek television. I wrote the article about Varoufakis in 2011! Greece and the Balkan are not the regions of reliable sources. And this is a discussion I also had in the past, there are often no academic sources. And if they exist, i am afraid they are composed in the same way I did. Were else should you find information is such a situation? The politicians were confused, the economists were confused, it was a crisis.

Looking at the current Catalan situation, this is something Wikipedia cannot write about based on press. The press are writing about what they see happening but to write about the International response of the EU for example you need not just to document what was said but explain the treaties and principles behind that response (for example the influence of the Northern Ireland situation of the 1970s in the processes of recognition of states within the EU) - that doesn't exist in the press coverage I've seen. Even Brexit logic impacts on coverage - in the UK the public equating of a vote being equivalent to a complete democratic process.

Anyway, the fundamental is that if you can't write a complete and fair article based on available sources to you then the article shouldn't exist because it just becomes further misinformation on the subject. The Wikipedian logic is there has to be an article and not to care whether it is a educator experience for the reader as long as there is a tick box of someone else to blame. It is important to get these things right when you realise the great unwashed are digesting Wikipedia without critical thought.

I think we are talking about two things. I am talking about using newspapers as a source of facts, and you as a source of analyzes. I made my one analyzes, using the facts out of newspapers, but in fact that is against the rules of Wikipedia. No original research. And I think that is one of the problems of Wikipedia....

I think we are now homing in on the issue - a list of facts is not an encyclopedic treatment, an encyclopedic article should be a summary of understanding of the topic. So there is the fact that JFK got shot, but then there is the blur of alleged conspiracy, fact, and speculation that surrounds it. The conspiracy theories are in turn "facts" that have evolved over time.

Without an element of analysis, presenting facts cannot be information, it is simply data. We cannot trust a newspaper analysis because it is based on incomplete facts, typically a hurried response to a current event, and then with its goldfish memory the press moves on to the next story.

Wikipedia isn't that bad in the scheme of things, but in the context of an increasingly proud to be ignorant public ("I don't care about the facts, it's my opinion and it's my right to hold it." to quote one person I ran across in social media) it is a slippery slope and to build a product that does not ultimately try and be the most informative that it can be is playing into the hands of the ignorant. The victors get to write the history, and in the modern world it is the ignorant who are winning.

The only thing I have to say is, thank you for this perfect resume!

[Randy from Boise]

Let's see how absurd I am being... From today's UK web edition...

Every story there is basically true, even if it is reported in a tabloid way. Are you telling me that every story in the National Enquirer is basically true?

I admire your fighting for your ridiculous thesis that the Daily Mail is a suitable source for BLP on Wikipedia to the last ditch... You've got team spirit!

You moved the goal posts, Randy. That's a penalty, and Poetlister wins.

While the Daily Mail falls down in so, so many different areas, the fact remains that it does occasionally break news that ends up having encyclopedic importance. (For example.)

I moved no goal posts. The core issue isn't about whether or not one can make use of the Daily Mail's incisive coverage of Congolese politics of the 1970s (which doesn't exist) it is about whether the use of a celebrity gossip magazine with a thinly-disguised right wing political agenda like the Daily Mail or its US equivalent, the National Enquirer, is appropriate for BLP. It is not and they are gone from Wikipedia, correctly. I have merely translated the actual issue into comprehensible English, since Poetlister seems to have been having trouble following the ball. Hopefully, that has been clarified for him.

Moving the goal posts? No. Explaining why the game is played, more like.

RfB

[Randy from Boise]

Today's hot news from Poetlister's esteemed Not The National Enquirer...

Shut Up And Buy! Superstar Rihanna's stylish four-bedroom penthouse duplex in New York is up for sale for a staggering $17million
Read more: linkhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/ar ... llion.html[/link]


Little girls should not dress up as Moana this Halloween because it is 'RACIST cultural appropriation' or Elsa from Frozen because it promotes 'white beauty', activists warn
Read more: linkhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... acist.html[/link]


Outrage as husband who battered his ex-wife with a nail-spiked bat because she 'cheated' is spared jail by judge 'because the Bible says adultery offends a man's honour and dignity'
Read more: linkhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ttack.html[/link]


Thailand's new king picks bits of his cremated father's charred bones and remains to be enshrined as relics as he leads mourners including Prince Andrew in third day of $90million funeral
Read more: linkhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... neral.html[/link]


Iraq is 'refusing to extradite' German jihadi schoolgirl facing EXECUTION for running away to Mosul and marrying an ISIS fighter

Read more: linkhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... lgirl.html[/link]


'Sugar daddy, sugar mama' dating advert posted outside Paris universities in bid to pair struggling students with rich men and women sparks outrage
Read more: linkhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... trage.html[/link]


Woman, 22, dies eight days after being hit by Ukrainian heiress who ploughed into pedestrians as she becomes sixth victim of the horror crash
Read more: linkhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... crash.html[/link]


AND SO ON, AND SO FORTH...

[thekohser]

AND SO ON, AND SO FORTH...

You know what? I hadn't looked at National Enquirer in maybe 20 years. I assumed it was still "Martians impregnated me" and "Crocodile rips through Brooklyn restroom". It's more "Caitlyn Jenner struggles keeping friends" now. I guess you're right on this one. Daily Mail is not much different than the "new" National Enquirer.

Still didn't need to be "banned" on Wikipedia, though. Just run each claim through the same Reliable Sources algorithm.

By the way, when the ban was installed February 2017, Wikipedia had over 53,000 links to the Daily Mail. Now, we're at 53,212. So, tell us again -- the effect of that ban has been what, exactly?

[Randy from Boise]

Let's see what's running currently at Not the Daily Mail....

AT RISK! Hollywood’s Sickest Predators Still On The Loose
Read more: linkhttps://www.nationalenquirer.com/photos ... -scandals/[/link]


ICY HOT MESS! Tonya Harding Plans Career Comeback
Read more: linkhttps://www.nationalenquirer.com/photos ... -comeback/[/link]


NOT SO FAST! Jerry Lewis: Troubling Claims His $75 Million Will’s A Forgery
Read more: linkhttps://www.nationalenquirer.com/photos ... l-forgery/[/link]


DOWN TO A DUFFLE! Bill Cosby: Broke Star Carries All His Cash In A Bag
Read more: linkhttps://www.nationalenquirer.com/photos ... l-scandal/[/link]


FIRST TO KNOW! Las Vegas Shooter: His Favorite Hooker Tells All
Read more: linkhttps://www.nationalenquirer.com/photos ... sex-slave/[/link]


FIRST TO KNOW! Robert Redford: Frail Star Sparks Fear Of Polio Relapse
Read more:linkhttps://www.nationalenquirer.com/photos ... ing-polio/[/link]


How "ridiculous" of me to think these two publications are even remotely alike. After all, one spews its hysteria and bullshit daily and the other does it only once a week... Quite different indeed.

RfB

[Randy from Boise]

AND SO ON, AND SO FORTH...

You know what? I hadn't looked at National Enquirer in maybe 20 years. I assumed it was still "Martians impregnated me" and "Crocodile rips through Brooklyn restroom". It's more "Caitlyn Jenner struggles keeping friends" now. I guess you're right on this one. Daily Mail is not much different than the "new" National Enquirer.

Still didn't need to be "banned" on Wikipedia, though. Just run each claim through the same Reliable Sources algorithm.

By the way, when the ban was installed February 2017, Wikipedia had over 53,000 links to the Daily Mail. Now, we're at 53,212. So, tell us again -- the effect of that ban has been what, exactly?

You confuse the National Enquirer, which has always been pretty much like it is now, with the late and great Weekly World News — an outstanding publication much like The Onion is an outstanding publication.

The Daily Mail places its highest emphasis on Brown People Behaving Badly; The National Enquirer on Celebrities Behaving Badly. One could, if one were so motivated, which I am not, at least make the case that the people covered in The Enquirer are WP:NOTABLE, while those in Not The Enquirer are BLP-1E bait... And thus, if you follow me, Not The Enquirer is even less suitable for Wikipedia than The Enquirer...

As for the notion of "reliable sources," I have argued before against the very concept of such a thing — every source is potentially accurate and potentially erroneous and it is up to editorial judgment and discretion to decide what to include or not include on the basis of veracity. But that's not a majority view at WP; and if there are sources to be banned outright, I can't think of a more deserving candidate.

RfB


THE BOARD SOFTWARE IS SUBSTITUTING LINKS FOR ITALICS.

[thekohser]

How "ridiculous" of me to think these two publications are even remotely alike. After all, one spews its hysteria and bullshit daily and the other does it only once a week... Quite different indeed.

Still doesn't explain why the ban is needed. Let's take a look at a recent link insertion into Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =802485809

The Wikipedian chose a Daily Mail story to substantiate the FACTUAL claim that Donald Trump tweeted that Warmbier was "tortured beyond belief" by North Korea. The Daily Mail story was obtained via Agence France-Presse (an international news agency headquartered in Paris, founded in 1835, and 3rd-largest news agency in the world). But if you go to AFP's website, you cannot find their story about Trump's tweet that Warmbier was "tortured beyond belief". So, what is a Wikipedian supposed to do there? Remove the knowledge, because you couldn't find the AFP source, and the knowledge now sits on a "banned" publication?

It's all so ridiculous. You fell for "Hillbillyholiday's" whole purpose of this -- to create drama. Maybe it's easier for me to see it, because I'm not embedded in Wikipedia the way you are?

[Smiley]

...the effect of that ban has been what, exactly?

It damaged the Mail's reputation worldwide.

You fell for "Hillbillyholiday's" whole purpose of this -- to create drama.

Yeah, that too.

[Randy from Boise]

I wouldn't trust the Daily Mail for any assertion of fact, such as that expressed in the second footnote you cite.

A far better question than why the richly deserved ban was placed on The Daily Mail is why your former internet publisher, The Examiner, was placed on a Wikipedia black list for links...

RfB

[thekohser]

You confuse the National Enquirer, which has always been pretty much like it is now...

Really, Tim? Surely we're both old enough to remember old National Enquirer headlines like:

"Exclusive New Evidence: Lee Harvey Oswald did not kill JFK"

"Arizona Man Captured by a Flying Saucer"

"U.S. Air Force Sergeant details his incredible experiences Aboard a Flying Saucer"

"Doctors Reveal Easy Method to Help You Lose Weight: Finger Pressure on Ears Stops Hunger"

It was a staple in my household, sonny.

[Randy from Boise]

You confuse the National Enquirer, which has always been pretty much like it is now...

Really, Tim? Surely we're both old enough to remember old National Enquirer headlines like:

"Exclusive New Evidence: Lee Harvey Oswald did not kill JFK"

"Arizona Man Captured by a Flying Saucer"

"U.S. Air Force Sergeant details his incredible experiences Aboard a Flying Saucer"

"Doctors Reveal Easy Method to Help You Lose Weight: Finger Pressure on Ears Stops Hunger"

It was a staple in my household, sonny.

See those two headlines in that picture? Glen Campbell (T-H-L) and Robert Wagner (T-H-L) and Jill St. John (T-H-L). Celebrity gossip.

You want The Bat Child, or Werewolf people, or space aliens? You want Weekly World News..

RfB

[thekohser]

why your former internet publisher, The Examiner, was placed on a Wikipedia black list for links...

That one is easy. A very small percentage of Examiner writers discovered that Wikipedia was an excellent way to drive traffic back to their own articles on Examiner, so they started spamming Wikipedia with links to their own-written Examiner articles. Instead of Wikipedians opening a discussion with Examiner ownership (who would have gladly implemented a "two strikes and you're out" rule on its citizen journalists caught linking back to Examiner articles, in addition to other remedies to the problem), they elected more quickly to just blacklist the entire domain from Article space.

(I know about this, because I opened discussions with Examiner management about this very issue.)

Does that answer your question?

See those two headlines in that picture? Glen Campbell (T-H-L) and Robert Wagner (T-H-L) and Jill St. John (T-H-L). Celebrity gossip.

You want The Bat Child, or Werewolf people, or space aliens? You want Weekly World News..

There you go moving the goalpost again. You know, the one with the Flying Saucer crossbar, and the Ear Pressure and Lee Harvey Oswald uprights?

[Poetlister]

Let's see how absurd I am being... From today's UK web edition...

Every story there is basically true, even if it is reported in a tabloid way. Are you telling me that every story in the National Enquirer is basically true?

I admire your fighting for your ridiculous thesis that the Daily Mail is a suitable source for BLP on Wikipedia to the last ditch... You've got team spirit!

RfB

Are you telling me that every story in the National Enquirer is basically true? And which newspaper is infallible, other than the Socialist Worker and Pravda?

[Poetlister]

I think we are talking about two things. I am talking about using newspapers as a source of facts, and you as a source of analyzes. I made my one analyzes, using the facts out of newspapers, but in fact that is against the rules of Wikipedia. No original research. And I think that is one of the problems of Wikipedia....

Quoted facts may be correct, but out of context they may be very misleading. Dogbiscuit is saying that daily newspapers are not providing essential context. There are good sources that do, such as The Economist, but that magazine seems to get insufficient attention from Wikipedia editors. (Randy will be along in a minute to explain that it is to the right of the Socialist Worker so is not to be trusted.)

[Zoloft]

I think we are talking about two things. I am talking about using newspapers as a source of facts, and you as a source of analyzes. I made my one analyzes, using the facts out of newspapers, but in fact that is against the rules of Wikipedia. No original research. And I think that is one of the problems of Wikipedia....

Quoted facts may be correct, but out of context they may be very misleading. Dogbiscuit is saying that daily newspapers are not providing essential context. There are good sources that do, such as The Economist, but that magazine seems to get insufficient attention from Wikipedia editors. (Randy will be along in a minute to explain that it is to the right of the Socialist Worker so is not to be trusted.)

I have a subscription to The Economist. A fine publication.
I just italicized the magazine name, and the board software worked fine. PM me with details, Randy

[Randy from Boise]

Are you telling me that every story in the National Enquirer is basically true?

......at least as true as those in Not The Enquirer.

And which newspaper is infallible, other than the Socialist Worker and Pravda?

You are being politically incoherent. The first is a UK Trot newspaper, the latter a defunct Soviet newspaper. You do appreciate that the Trots and the orthodox Communists hated each other's guts, do you not? And you do realize that I am a social democrat, not a Trot or a Communist, do you not? Uhhh, all the same to you, being a Tory (or a Tory-lite Blairite, same difference...). And completely a strawman argument, I add....

See above as for my views on so-called "reliable sources." You obviously didn't read it the first time before you chirped off, so try again........

Here's the underlying issue: is use of The Daily Mail appropriate for BLP on Wikipedia? Yes or no?

And here's my observation: that publication is functionally equal to the National Enquirer in the USA — which is obvious to anyone who can read.

RfB

[DHeyward]

It's not a real newspaper, much as the National Enquirer is not a real newspaper in the USA. Oh, wait, that one's right wing also — so you must like it as well, eh?

RfB

I don't have a high regard for the Daily Mail, but to compare it to the National Enquirer is so absurd that I assume you meant that as sarcasm. Or are you just blindly sticking to Wikipedia policy?

Let's see how absurd I am being... From today's UK web edition...

BREAKING NEWS: X Factor millionaire Simon Cowell is stretchered out of his house wearing a neck brace after falling down the stairs at his London home
Read more: linkhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... pital.html[/link]

Up to her old tricks? Taylor Swift shocks fans as she turns nude cyborg in full ...Ready For It? video... as fans go wild over Calvin Harris references
Read more: linkhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/ar ... video.html[/link]

Brexit ministry loses another minister as Baroness Anelay resigns and blames a worsening injury she sustained when she fell out of a Black Hawk HELICOPTER two years ago
Read more: linkhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... tment.html[/link]

Wife whose husband is accused of trying to kill her by tampering with her parachute tells court he barely visited her in hospital after and refused to say he loved her
Read more: linkhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... pital.html[/link]

Teenager, 18, is charged with murder following the death of a 47-year-old nurse who was showered with ACID after a bottle was kicked at her as she sat on a bench
Read more: linkhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ttack.html[/link]

And so on and so forth. That is just TODAY (Oct. 27, 2017) from the front page of this outstanding "newspaper."

Let me repeat myself for emphasis: The Daily Mail is the same exact thing as the National fucking Enquirer in the United States and is similarly not suitable for use as a source for anything BLP-related at Wikipedia.

RfB

I'm pretty sure CNN or USA Today covered all those stories except for possibly the murders. Not to mention that they are covered by all the other UK news outlets.

Not only that, most of the local newspapers in the U.S. use front page story headlines without distinguishing whether the story is local, national or worldwide. Editorial oversight has tanked with the internet and DM is just one of all the outlets. They are no worse than any USA Today affiliated outlet or even Amazon's Washington Post. They cater to sensationalism but they are generally accurate. Clickbait percentage is not the criteria for accuracy. Really, if you ignore clickbait coverage, their product is nearly identical to everyone elses.

[Randy from Boise]

[The Daily Mail] are no worse than any USA Today affiliated outlet or even Amazon's Washington Post.

Bullshit.

Bull Fucking Shit.

Trumpite.

Troll.

RfB

[tarantino]

[The Daily Mail] are no worse than any USA Today affiliated outlet or even Amazon's Washington Post.

Bullshit.

Bull Fucking Shit.

Trumpite.

Troll.

RfB

Don't insult our forum members.

[Zoloft]

[The Daily Mail] are no worse than any USA Today affiliated outlet or even Amazon's Washington Post.

Bullshit.

Bull Fucking Shit.

Trumpite.

Troll.

RfB

Don't insult our forum members.

Seconded. Disagree but drop the epithets. I realize that people can be maddening, but let's try to get along.

[Graaf Statler]

I think we are talking about two things. I am talking about using newspapers as a source of facts, and you as a source of analyzes. I made my one analyzes, using the facts out of newspapers, but in fact that is against the rules of Wikipedia. No original research. And I think that is one of the problems of Wikipedia....

Quoted facts may be correct, but out of context they may be very misleading. Dogbiscuit is saying that daily newspapers are not providing essential context. There are good sources that do, such as The Economist, but that magazine seems to get insufficient attention from Wikipedia editors. (Randy will be along in a minute to explain that it is to the right of the Socialist Worker so is not to be trusted.)

It's all a matter of money. What I said before, pay ten euro/dollar a month for a quality newspaper and you are liberated from fake news and you have perfect news within the context. Jimmy and many other people are giving the impression good journalism has died, but that is demagogy. Nobody wants to pay for reliable news anymore, wikipedians too, and because of that reason the world gets what it deserve, garbage for free.

[Randy from Boise]

[The Daily Mail] are no worse than any USA Today affiliated outlet or even Amazon's Washington Post.

Bullshit.

Bull Fucking Shit.

RfB

[Graaf Statler]

[The Daily Mail] are no worse than any USA Today affiliated outlet or even Amazon's Washington Post.

Bullshit.

Bull Fucking Shit.

RfB

Hmmmm, a typycal example of harassment. I will ask tarantino to block you and ask the wikipediocrazy arbitration committee to look at this matter and block you indefinitely.
But seriously, I think agree to disagree is a better solution, Tim. Neither one of you will convince the other, and shouting does't help. Better to leave it.

[Poetlister]

It's all a matter of money. What I said before, pay ten euro/dollar a month for a quality newspaper and you are liberated from fake news and you have perfect news within the context.

I wish that that were true. No newspaper is of such high quality. You must consult several different sources, preferably in different languages, to get a well-rounded picture.

[Graaf Statler]

It's all a matter of money. What I said before, pay ten euro/dollar a month for a quality newspaper and you are liberated from fake news and you have perfect news within the context.

I wish that that were true. No newspaper is of such high quality. You must consult several different sources, preferably in different languages, to get a well-rounded picture.

Absolute. But you and me are in the position we can read in different languages. Because Google translate is useful to get a impression of a article, but not to read it. And for that reason I listen to the greek news because I can't read Greek, and mostly a robot makes total incomprehensible nonsens out of a Greek article.
But, anyway, if you read De Volkskrant, the Frankfurter Allgemeine, most times you get a better vieux on the situation than if you read a free daily. But, a problem can be those articles are most times behind a paywall and I think for that reason they are not useful as a source on Wikipedia. It is difficult material.