Back to the articleHow very unusual #
Posted Friday 17th October 2008 06:25 GMT
I am amazed that the Daily Mirror has reported a fabrication of fact, not like them at all!!!!
Daily Mirror trapped in Wikicirclejerk
Loving it #
Posted Friday 17th October 2008 09:18 GMT
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.
Not unusual. #
Posted Friday 17th October 2008 09:18 GMT
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.
who is Number57? #
Posted Friday 17th October 2008 09:18 GMT
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.
Now... #
Posted Friday 17th October 2008 09:18 GMT
...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.
New entry #
Posted Friday 17th October 2008 09:19 GMT
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.
It just goes to show... #
Posted Friday 17th October 2008 09:19 GMT
... 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.
OK who's going to ... #
Posted Friday 17th October 2008 09:19 GMT
update the Daily Mirror's wiki entry?
Is it possible to charge them with infringement of crappy-write?
Are these the same hacks . . . #
Posted Friday 17th October 2008 09:19 GMT
. . .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.
The onward march of the morons #
Posted Friday 17th October 2008 09:19 GMT
"...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.
Wikipedia sources #
Posted Friday 17th October 2008 09:19 GMT
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!
Not the first time... #
Posted Friday 17th October 2008 09:19 GMT
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...
What #
Posted Friday 17th October 2008 09:19 GMT
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.
@graeme #
Posted Friday 17th October 2008 10:48 GMT
> "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?
Let me be the first.... #
Posted Friday 17th October 2008 10:48 GMT
...to welcome our Zany, shoe-hat wearing overlords (even if they only exist in wikiland)
Zany Ones #
Posted Friday 17th October 2008 12:00 GMT
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.
It's not an encyclopædia, it's a messageboard #
Posted Friday 17th October 2008 13:36 GMT
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.
Shenanigans! #
Posted Saturday 18th October 2008 01:55 GMT
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
Popular Whitepapers
- Thermal design of the Dell PowerEdge T610, R610, and R710 servers
Monolithic thermal design overview - Seven ways to optimize VMware server virtualization
Virtualized storage complimenting virtualized applications - 10 Steps to a Successful CRM Implementation
Avoid a rocky CRM rollout with this checklist - Market Primer: ERP Systems
Still stuck in the clouds when in comes to ERP? - SMB phone systems product requirements worksheet
Learn which phone system best suits your business's needs - Breakthrough advantage with the IBM System Blue Gene/P solution for exploration and production
A tectonic shift in upstream petroleum
