The Daily Fail

[Deebs]

Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' source

That is all

 

[Raven]

Job will be livid.

...Although the Guardian should be watching their backs too...

 

[Job]

Really..just the Mail.

Everyone seems to be staking their claim on their righteousness.

Drew Barrymore was on Ellen degenerate this morning with tinder style swipes for celebs she fancied or not...she was like meh for most of them, then got to John Oliver, the King of leftie bullshit.
She was all over him..omg I love himmmm!

 

[TdC]

Lefties get all the hot chicks.

 

[ECA]

Lefties get all the hot chicks.

The leftist chicks are all the fatties with dyed hair who get angry on tumblr about thin people, and the desperate uggo dudes who's only hope of touching a boobie is with said chicks.
The right gets the hot chicks.

 

[TdC]

Not really. being a filthy leftie myself I know this well

 

[Job]

That's the main reason for guys joining the student union.
To bang curious tattooed lesbians.

 

[Raven]

Not only that but being offended by everything even if you have never heard of it is serious business to an 18 year old.

 

[Scouse]

Freddyshouse has been ahead of the curve for a long time. Posting fail links has labelled you insta-twat for a long time.

Although since Brexit certain closet twats have been "emboldened" and now post them again...

 

[Job]

I think I've asked before, for a list of approved news sources.
I presume it's based on facts, not student union hit list.

 

[fettoken]

That's the main reason for guys joining the student union.
To bang curious tattooed lesbians.

@TdC Any progress with ze lesbians?

 

[Moriath]

I think I've asked before, for a list of approved news sources.
I presume it's based on facts, not student union hit list.

Really no one source is good. You need toget the info from a number of sources and compare the similarities/differences. And make your mind up from there.

 

[TdC]

@TdC Any progress with ze lesbians?

I'm still battling the restraining order in court

 

[Job]

Yewtree never give up.

 

[Anastasia]

Is any newspaper a reliable source given that they're all peddling someone or other's politically motivated agenda. I agree with @Moriath you have read across a subject, including sources you instinctively distrust. And even then you're getting filtered, nuanced and opinionated information.

Most people just choose what to believe based on their own prejudices, I"m certain that"s true of me.

 

[Raven]

Newspapers are just the mouthpiece for some moron, they don't have the revenue streams to be independent so must suckle the teat of their owner/investers.

The Sun, populist idiocy with a right wing bent.

The Daily Mail, basically just a racist shit rag, written and funded by idiots, for idiots... with the odd bit of celebrity child in swimwear obsession. (Ideal for @Job)

The Guardian, whatever is the trending topic down at the student union, mixed with a bit of tax dodging hypocrisy.

The Express, Daily Mail lite.

The times, the Sun through a thesaurus.

Newspapers are long dead.

 

[Tom]

I've written a fair few featured Wikipedia articles. I have had to fight on occasion to keep people from adding sources like the Mail, Sun, Mirror et al. I'm glad to see a consensus arise for this, the Daily Mail is as accurate as a diseased arse.

 

[Jupitus]

I've written a fair few featured Wikipedia articles. I have had to fight on occasion to keep people from adding sources like the Mail, Sun, Mirror et al. I'm glad to see a consensus arise for this, the Daily Mail is as accurate as a diseased arse.

Sir! I must disagree!! I think I am far more accurate then the Daily Mail!!!

 

[Bodhi]

So Wikipedia, well known as an unreliable source of information, kicks out another publication for being and unreliable source of information.

I think my irony meter just exploded.

 

[Tom]

It might help you to know that Wikipedia does not consider itself a reliable source. Which is why the good articles use inline citations, with a list of sources at the bottom of those articles, so that readers can check for themselves.

Here's an article I wrote. Everything is cited.

Resurrectionists in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia

Nobody is going to tell me that there's a more comprehensive or trustworthy entry on that subject anywhere else on the internet.

 

[Raven]

Wikipedia is OK for vague facts but it is not considered a truly reliable source.

It certainly has its uses though and I think the world is better for its existence.

 

[Bodhi]

Lordy. You'd almost think I said Wikipedia was a n unreliable resource because Wiki themselves said so.

This does not makes things any less ironic. Probably more so in fact.

 

[Tom]

It's about understanding sources and how they're used. People who assume Wikipedia isn't to be trusted are right, in a sense, but also generally ignorant of how to use Wikipedia. The solution is simple - head to the bottom of the article and check the sources. If none are offered, it's likely a very poor article. If it contains dozens of citations linked to source material that appears to be scholarly, then you're probably on the right track.

If you just want a general article on a subject, then Wikipedia is a good website to use (provided the article is good to begin with). If you want to write something more serious, then you should use that good article's sources - not Wikipedia itself.

 

[Moriath]

It might help you to know that Wikipedia does not consider itself a reliable source. Which is why the good articles use inline citations, with a list of sources at the bottom of those articles, so that readers can check for themselves.

Here's an article I wrote. Everything is cited.

Resurrectionists in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia

Nobody is going to tell me that there's a more comprehensive or trustworthy entry on that subject anywhere else on the internet.

Said the unbias authur. Lol

 

[MYstIC G]

It might help you to know that Wikipedia does not consider itself a reliable source. Which is why the good articles use inline citations, with a list of sources at the bottom of those articles, so that readers can check for themselves.

Here's an article I wrote. Everything is cited.

Resurrectionists in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia

Nobody is going to tell me that there's a more comprehensive or trustworthy entry on that subject anywhere else on the internet.

Yes there is, you know just because I said so. Like when you tell me I don't see cyclists run red lights all the time.

 

[Bodhi]

The Mail vs Wikipedia: They're more alike than they'd ever admit

Seems to sum up the hilarity in this whole story rather well, although I wasn't aware Jimmy Wales was on the editorial board of The Guardian. Maybe there was more of a political motive to this than we thought?