Feeds

back to article Daily Mirror trapped in Wikicirclejerk

Yes, Virginia, Wikipedia is a trusted source for journalists the world over. Just ask David Anderson of The Daily Mirror. In late August, after the draw for this season's UEFA Cup, someone calling themselves godpants decided he would add a few words to the Wikipedia page detailing a Cypriot football club known as AC Omonia. "A …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
Silver badge

How very unusual

I am amazed that the Daily Mirror has reported a fabrication of fact, not like them at all!!!!

0
0
Thumb Up

Loving it

Especially the bit about the 'fact' getting back into wikipedia using the fouled-up article as source. Maybe journalists should be forced to quote all sources themselves like in a university essay.

0
0
Gold badge

Not unusual.

With the state of the Stock Market right now, there's no mileage for Mirror hacks in running "pump 'n dump" stock scams to fleece their readers at the moment.

This means they have enough time on their hands to look stuff up on Wikipedia to pad their crap articles, rather than letting some subbie (who does it regularly and can thus spot the bollocks) do it for them.

0
0
Unhappy

who is Number57?

Apart from the fact that this story is several weeks old and hardly, therefore, "news", does anybody know the actual identity of Number57, the wikipedia member who keeps removing references to this hoax from the page?

A section detailing the hoax has been added several times by different people only for this one person to repeatedly remove it (as you'd know if you bothered to look at the page's history). This editor claims to be a journalist.

One can't help but wonder if they have any connection with the Daily Mirror. I think we should be told.

0
0

Now...

...all we need is for Omonia's fans to actually start calling themselves The Zany Ones and start wearing hats made of shoes to complete the circle.

0
0
Coat

New entry

I just found on Wiki that if all Mirror readers send me all there money the queen will visit them at there house, honest its on wiki.

0
0

B3ta?

Am I really surprised?

0
0
Joke

It just goes to show...

... that Wikipedia is a dangerous, subversive revolutionary tool designed to bring the West to its knees. Clearly it needs editorial support. Why don't all the UK tabloids offer a day a week of their editors time, I'm sure we'll have the facts all straightened out in no time.

Note to self: don't give the Royal Family section to the editor from the Express.

0
0
Bronze badge
Thumb Up

Ha Ha Ha Ha

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha :-)

0
0
Silver badge

OK who's going to ...

update the Daily Mirror's wiki entry?

Is it possible to charge them with infringement of crappy-write?

0
0
Silver badge

Are these the same hacks . . .

. . .who bleat about students using the web for course work content? The same faux journalists who get paid for presenting rumour and lies as fact?

Most Primary school kids do better research for homework - and still get slated by the lazy bastards.

But, Wiki and journos is another form of Rick-rolling. They'll click on anything just for a bit of copy.

0
0

The onward march of the morons

"...the nonsense was reinstated - with David Anderson's UEFA Cup preview cited as a source."

Priceless! An absoloutely perfect example of both tabloid sloppiness and the circularity of media cannibalism.

Wikipedia is a paradignm of self-fulfilling prophesy, an inherently flawed concept. The wisdom of the herd is, in fact, no more than the babbling of the plebeian hordes. Sorry, Jimbo, your darling child just adds to the media's white noise.

That said, the Wikipedia article on Tarantino's 'Pulp fiction' is an example of what can be done - but even that contains contentious POVs and several inacurracies.

0
0
Bronze badge

Wikipedia sources

I note this from wikipedia's instructions on what to use as a verifiable source

"Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"

So that's many British redtops out of the running!

0
0

Not the first time...

A similar thing happened with the "Ronnie Hazlehurst co-wrote S Club 7's 'Reach'" prank (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/03/wikipedia_obituary_cut_and_paste/) i.e. it reappeared on the Wikipedia page with the gullible obit writers cited as sources...

0
0
Go

What

Jeez! Don't they ever learn? How many times must reporters be exposed this way before they learn anything?

You'd think that the guy himself would say "awfuckit", be embarrassed and vow to himself not to trust Wiki. Well any sane and rational person would but I guess it's a very "special" breed that land jobs with The Mirror.

0
0
Silver badge

@graeme

> "Articles should rely on reliable, ... So that's many British redtops out of the running!

Hey, many of them have up to three completely accurate facts on their front page alone:

The price, the date and their name - surely that's enough for anyone these days?

0
0

Let me be the first....

...to welcome our Zany, shoe-hat wearing overlords (even if they only exist in wikiland)

0
0
Happy

That's brightened my day.

giggle

0
0
Linux

Zany Ones

It causes me to rejoice and throw my cap in the air (Air Jordan old style) to see our wonderful fans mentioned in El Reg. What is Wikipedia.

0
0
Paris Hilton

It's not an encyclopædia, it's a messageboard

Why keep describing it as "the free online encyclopedia anyone can edit" when what it really is, is "the free online messagboard where anyone can edit everyone elses' messages"?

And is Vernon Kay still dead or have they undone that 'posted message' yet and restored him back to life?

Still, at least it's only the Daily Mirror this time. It seemed that the whole of Fleet Street included the 'S-Club 7' nonsense in Ronnie Hazlehurst's obituaries.

0
0
Boffin

Shenanigans!

On Wikipedia? Never! But I perused the edit history and noticed that the profile link for the unregistered user who keeps re-adding the info saying it is verifiable and should be left is mysteriously purple. It's the same IP address as was editing the plumbing article the other day so, is the Wikifiddler at 213.218.242.73 (a) a reg commenter or (b) a reg staffer? Come on, own up - glory or ridicule awaits!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/213.218.242.73

0
0
This topic is closed for new posts.