back to article Prepare your popcorn: Wikipedia deems the Daily Mail unreliable

Welcome, Mr Dacre. Wikipedia editors have voted to put The Daily Mail in the sin bin – alongside The Register. After a small but decisive vote involving around 80 contributors, the Mail is now classified as a "potentially unreliable source" on its advice page. This doesn't mean its a "policy" or a "guideline", but editors are …

  1. getHandle

    Hmm

    I take El Reg with a pinch of salt at times, but the only thing the Daily Mail is good for is catching the salt from my chips! (YMMV etc)

    1. Smooth Newt
      Thumb Up

      Damn

      I'll just have to cite the Sunday Sport instead.

    2. TheVogon Silver badge

      Re: Hmm

      Good job too. The Daily Mail (along with The Express) still posts fraudulent articles doubting anthropogenic global warming, even though it's been in zero scientific doubt for well over a decade now.

      1. Kernel Silver badge

        Re: Hmm

        " The Daily Mail (along with The Express) still posts fraudulent articles doubting anthropogenic global warming, even though it's been in zero scientific doubt for well over a decade now."

        You disagreeing with something does not, nor ever will, make it fraudulent - nor will it make the opposite irrefutably true.

        1. Rattus Rattus

          @Kernel

          Re: "You disagreeing with something does not, nor ever will, make it fraudulent - nor will it make the opposite irrefutably true"

          So, have you thought to mention that to any climate change deniers?

          1. SundogUK Silver badge

            Re: @Kernel

            Down-voted for 'deniers.'

        2. TheVogon Silver badge

          Re: Hmm

          "You disagreeing with something does not, nor ever will, make it fraudulent - nor will it make the opposite irrefutably true."

          It's factually untrue. We know the planet is warming over a period of decades and we know we are at least significantly to blame. That isn't an opinion. That's a scientifically verified fact with overwhelming observable evidence to support it.

          1. Steve the Cynic

            Re: Hmm

            "a scientifically verified fact"

            There's no such thing. Anywhere. The scientific method allows us to demonstrate that theories are incorrect, and to *support* theories that have not yet been proven incorrect:

            1. Observe phenomenon

            2. Create theory to explain the phenomenon.

            3. Use the theory to make predictions of what we could observe related to that phenomenon.

            4. Conduct experiments.

            5. Analyse the results.

            If the results match the predictions, the experimental result *supports* the theory. If not, then EITHER the theory is wrong OR the predictions were incorrectly calculated OR the experiment was incorrectly carried out OR the experiment was incorrectly designed. At no time can we actually use science to *PROVE* a theory, nor a fact.

            A "scientific consensus" that a theory is "correct" emerges as we do more experiments and the results support the theory, but at no time is the theory *proven*.

            So: there is an empirically-demonstrated trend of warming (measured in terms of average global temperatures or something), and a theory that we are to blame. The theory is supported by *models*, not *experiments*, and the support is, therefore, not strictly "scientific". Conducting experiments on global climate averages is ... difficult. Devising a model and playing with it is not a suitable substitute for actual empirical experiments. The model is a tool for making predictions based on the theory, not a form of experiment.

            CAVEAT: I fully expect to get a jolly bundle of downvotes for this, but bear in mind that I'm not saying we aren't to blame for that warming trend. I'm saying that it isn't *proven*, and it isn't a *fact*.

          2. nijam

            Re: Hmm

            > We know the planet is warming over a period of decades and we know we are at least significantly to blame.

            We also know it's been warming since before the end of the last ice age and that we are definitely not to blame for almost all of that. Just saying.

            1. Jonathan Richards 1

              Re: Hmm

              > we are definitely not to blame for almost all of that[citation needed]

              Humans have been clearing forests and hugely altering ecosystems since at least soon after the last ice retreat; I say no more than that I think your "definitely" is possibly misplaced.

            2. TheVogon Silver badge

              Re: Hmm

              "We also know it's been warming since before the end of the last ice age and that we are definitely not to blame for almost all of that. Just saying."

              Sure. At roughly 170th of the average speed of the more recent changes!

              That the climate changes naturally isn't in doubt either. However when the climate has historically changed rapidly it has generally lead to mass extinctions. Personally I would rather humanity not eliminate itself from the gene pool....

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Hmm

        Saying ' zero scientific doubt' is proof you just don't understand.

    3. TheVogon Silver badge

      Re: Hmm

      "only thing the Daily Mail is good for is catching the salt from my chips!"

      Presumably you don't have a cat / litter tray then?

    4. Triggerfish

      Re: Hmm

      I disagree, the daily mail is a great source of guidance in morality and how to think about the world.

      In times of doubt just look at what they say about a subject and think the exact opposite.

  2. Hollerithevo Silver badge

    It might not be the Newspaper of Record...

    ... but the Daily Mail does have reporters and editors and so on. It is what it is, but there's no newspaper or publication (perhaps the Encyclopedia Britannica??) that should be considered a reliable source without further research.

    1. Haku

      Re: It might not be the Newspaper of Record...

      "there's no newspaper or publication (perhaps the Encyclopedia Britannica??) that should be considered a reliable source without further research."

      Sounds like you're referring to Wikipedia...

      1. Steve the Cynic

        Re: It might not be the Newspaper of Record...

        "Sounds like you're referring to Wikipedia..."

        There's a reason I call Wikipedia "The Unreliable Source"...

        ("The encyclopedia anyone can edit" might possibly be part of that reason, but the missing part of that is the real reason... "The encyclopedia anyone can edit, and frequently does.")

    2. DrXym Silver badge

      Re: It might not be the Newspaper of Record...

      It might have reporters but they've never heard of a thing called veracity, or if they have they ran a mile in the other direction to avoid it.

    3. nematoad Silver badge
      Happy

      Re: It might not be the Newspaper of Record...

      "We look forward to seeing how the Mail's editor, Paul Dacre, will respond to the snub."

      Simple, he'll just label them "Enemies of the people."

    4. nijam

      Re: It might not be the Newspaper of Record...

      Didn't a study a few years back suggest that Wikipedia had fewer errors than Encyclopedia Britannica, in topics where their coverage overlaps?

      1. NicholasStixUncensored

        Re: It might not be the Newspaper of Record...

        It found no such thing. It found that The Pretend Encyclopedia had app. 30% more errors than Britannica.

  3. MNGrrrl
    Trollface

    Irony

    At best this is the kettle calling the pot black. Nobody will accept a wikipedia citation as credible in any of the STEM fields or in college. So El Reg, if the trash pile that is Wikipedia says they consider you 'not credible', don't take it personally. This is a little like that perenially single aunt of yours giving you relationship advice... it's best just to nod your head and then excuse yourself before you start laughing.

    1. Dave 126 Silver badge

      Re: Irony

      >At best this is the kettle calling the pot black. Nobody will accept a wikipedia citation as credible in any of the STEM fields or in college.

      There is no reason to do so - Wikipedia pages cite the [often peer-reviewed] sources it has used. With Wikipedia you can look at its sources of an article and drill back through its history, including discussions between contributors. (Of course I don't mean to understate the danger that many readers won't do so)

      It's not perfect, but it's no Daily Mail.

      1. John Lilburne

        Re: Irony

        Indeed it isn't the Daily Mail, otherwise known as the Forger's Gazette, and the Daily "Hate" Mail. That said wikipedia citations/references are mostly dead links, or uncheckable, should you manage to do so they rarely support the factoid that they are attached to, and there is no guarantee that the reference is the most credible one either. For that you need subject expertise which wikipedia lacks in spades.

        1. annodomini2

          Re: Irony

          @John Lilburne, you forgot 'Daily Fail'

    2. Olius

      Re: Irony

      Not really "pot and kettle" IMHO.

      If you assume Wikipedia is mainly edited in good faith, then its articles are only as good as its references. So if it makes sure all articles are cited with decent references - by, in appropriate cases, blanket banning references from publications known to be problematic - it makes itself a better source of information.

      So I see this as the "pot" making itself less black by not going near the "kettle".

      It may never be "less black" enough to be cited in STEM papers, but it is a valiant aim.

      1. Not That Andrew

        Re: Irony

        A small but significant number of Wikipedia references I have checked are to random blog posts that themselves are either just a copy & past of the Wikipedia article, or reference it. It's fairly clear that whoever inserted the references just googled & used a couple random results without actually reading them.

      2. NicholasStixUncensored

        Re: Irony

        "If you assume Wikipedia is mainly edited in good faith..."

        The Pretend Encyclopedia's Marxist enforcers have been caught editing in bad faith countless times. They still insist that the frequently disgraced SPLC is a "reliable source."

  4. Franco Silver badge

    Oh, the irony of being called unreliable by Wikipedia.

    As much as the goal of Wikipedia is to be applauded, it's execution is fairly terrible. I did once try to correct an article that was incorrect and had my edit removed with the comment that although the entry was wrong, it quoted a more reliable source with the wrong information than the 4 I provided with the correct information. At which point my brief career as a Wikipedia contributor ended.

    1. DropBear Silver badge

      Hopefully it wasn't one of those topics where the one and only correct answer is different each time you ask someone else.

  5. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

    The Mail "is no longer considered to be a reliable source and cannot be used to demonstrate notability",

    I expect that the Mail feels the same way about Wikipedia. Does anyone really trust either of them?

  6. Christoph Silver badge

    Unreliable? The Daily Heil has been reliably and solidly ultra-right for many decades!

    1. Paul 135

      Has it? The Daily Mail is often notoriously PC, especially with regards to ce sorting comments.

      All this is showing is the political bias of this particular clique within Wikipedia. I note they are not interested in listing the notoriously biased BBC as unreliable. That said, both are far more reliable than Wikipedia itself.

  7. MNGrrrl

    > I expect that the Mail feels the same way about Wikipedia. Does anyone really trust either of them?

    I'd trust the Mail more. Imagine what it would look like if their readers could edit articles after publication. Now imagine the amount of beer you'd need to consume to unsee that. I know how much the average Briton drinks, and I know you'd still be bone dry by friday...

  8. Mad Dave

    Does anyone believe that Wikipedia is anything other than a US government front?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "Does anyone believe that Wikipedia is anything other than a US government front?"

      No

      That's title is reserved for Microsoft, Google, Apple, Intel and Oracle.

      I've probably left a few out, feel free to add.

      1. Champ

        What, the Microsoft and Google who have recently, and separately, taken their government to court?

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    time for a new Masthead on the Daily Flail?

    That proudly says

    "As Not Recommended by Wikipedia"

    And circulation may well rise on the back of it.

    Shame really as the mail had turned into a home for rabid fascists. Wait, didn't they support Hitler in 1933?

    1. Dan 55 Silver badge

      Re: time for a new Masthead on the Daily Flail?

      No, it was Mosley in 1933 and Hitler in 1938.

      I think I prefer Wikipedia.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    When were either of them reliable?

    One's a font of knowledge from unreliable sources and the other is a comedy tabloid of unreliable "immigrants stole my wife's mop and now I'm impotent with no shoes" stories.

    Does anyone take them as truly reliable? I always cross check Wikipedia and if I do come across a mail story by accident I read it for humour value.

    1. lglethal Silver badge
      Joke

      "One's a font of knowledge from unreliable sources and the other is a comedy tabloid..."

      So which one is El Reg again? Or is the first regular El Reg and the second Bootnotes El Reg?

      I'll get my coat...

    2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      "Does anyone take them as truly reliable? "

      If some of the shite re-posted by some of my wife's "friends" on Facebok are anything to go by, yes, not only do a lot of people believe the crap, they block you on Facebook when you demonstrate that they are wrong.

      I hasten to add that no, I really don't have a Facebook account but my wife take great delight in telling me what's going on. I do my best to grunt or make other similar soothing noises while does that/

  11. cantankerous swineherd Silver badge

    DM known as the forgers gazette in some circles.

  12. Youngone

    This is wrong

    How will I know what causes and cures cancer simultaneously?

    Don't make me read the Daily Mail to find out, please.

    1. GrapeBunch Silver badge

      Re: This is wrong

      "How will I know what causes and cures cancer simultaneously?"

      You don't need an unreliable source for that. The answer is "radiation".

      1. GrapeBunch Silver badge

        Re: This is wrong

        Article about Medical treatment in Atlantic Monthly:

        A decade ago, Stanford’s Ioannidis published a paper warning the scientific community that “Most Published Research Findings Are False.” (In 2012, he coauthored a paper showing that pretty much everything in your fridge has been found to both cause and prevent cancer—except bacon, which apparently only causes cancer.)

        So, not just radiation. Everything but baaaaaaa.

  13. Claptrap314 Silver badge

    If the subject is even remotely controversial, then at best wikipedia will oscillate between options. Far more likely, however, is that someone hirer up will get involved and enforce their view on the page.

  14. J.Smith

    Left-wing front

    I get my news from the Sun, I wouldn't trust Wikipedia as far as I can't throw it. It's a left-wing front, deeply anti-American.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Left-wing front

      Call me stupid but is "the sun" not owned by fox?

      Though it's probably a brown star,

    2. TheVogon Silver badge

      Re: Left-wing front

      "I get my news from the Sun"

      Most of us here are a bit old to still be reading comics...

    3. Olius

      Re: Left-wing front

      "Left wing front"

      You mean in the way they might publish referenced stats on, say, actual migrant numbers instead of just putting up a picture of a group of migrants with the word "swarm" underneath and letting people draw their own conclusions?

  15. Tom 7 Silver badge

    Potentially unreliable?

    Oh yeh you would have to read it first!

  16. Nolveys
    Thumb Down

    The Daily Mail in the sin bin – alongside The Register.

    Ewwwwww, gross! Get it away, get it away!

  17. steelpillow Silver badge

    Reality check

    Wikipedia cheerfully admits that it is unreliable and refuses to cite its own pages. Would that the Daily Mail or El Reg were so forthcoming.

    There is a story that when a researcher compared Wikipedia with the Encyclopedia Britannica, they found fewer howlers, page for page, in Wikipedia. Now, where can I get that story reliably verified....

    1. Drewc (Written by Reg staff) Gold badge

      Re: Reality check

      The Britannica claim is easy enough to check - It arises from a study published in Nature in 2006 - It was controversial to say the least - our report at the time.

  18. TReko
    Flame

    Climate Change Whistleblower

    It might be a coincidence, but the Daily Mail published an article by a climate science whistleblower from NOAA last week, claiming that he had been asked to make climate change predictions more dire before the Paris climate change conference last year.

    El Reg is also sometimes on the sceptical side on climate change.

    Perhaps this infuriates the Wiki-pedians?

    1. Drewc (Written by Reg staff) Gold badge

      Re: Climate Change Whistleblower

      Our Wikipedia coverage dating from the mid-2000s is what infuriates - or infuriated Wiki-Pedians. Everything else is post hoc rationale...

    2. TheVogon Silver badge

      Re: Climate Change Whistleblower

      "the Daily Mail published an article by a climate science whistleblower from NOAA last week"

      A good example of the fiction in question. See for instance https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/feb/05/mail-on-sunday-launches-the-first-salvo-in-the-latest-war-against-climate-scientists

      1. Thought About IT

        Re: Climate Change Whistleblower

        Indeed, under Lewis Page, El Reg was part of the AGW denial echo chamber that includes WUWT, the Mail, Telegraph and GWPF. As they have not duplicated Rose's "research" here, it seems that El Reg has sensibly decided that the consequent loss in credibility is no longer worth it.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Climate Change Whistleblower

          @Thought

          "Indeed, under Lewis Page, El Reg was part of the AGW denial echo chamber"

          You must have missed all those posts by the other Register journalists telling me that AGW was an imminent catastrophe. Seems like this place is a broad church, or used to be:

          http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/05/06/us_national_climate_assessment/

          What you really object to is any criticism of the climate science priesthood, so you can advance your political agenda of drastic carbon reduction. Or any evidence such as the pause that contradicts the narrative of imminent catastrophe. So your real goal is not to improve the public's knowledge, but stamp out dissent.

          (Anon. to avoid being doxxed by climate fanatics)

          1. Mooseman Silver badge

            Re: Climate Change Whistleblower

            "What you really object to is any criticism of the climate science priesthood, so you can advance your political agenda of drastic carbon reduction. Or any evidence such as the pause that contradicts the narrative of imminent catastrophe. So your real goal is not to improve the public's knowledge, but stamp out dissent."

            Good use of the usual climate change denier buzzwords there - priesthood ffs. So you're saying that the climate isn't even changing, let alone that the massive amounts of pollution pumped out since the industrial revolution has nothing to do with it? The "pause" you mention has been widely debunked by everyone except those working directly for the oil and gas companies. - heres a link for you in casde you want to learn something

            http://climatenexus.org/messaging-communication/basics/debunking-top-10-climate-change-myths

            The planet has been warmer every year, for years. Stop bleating out catchphrases and insults.

      2. nijam

        Re: Climate Change Whistleblower

        > https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent...

        Oh, please don't drag them into it as well. They only look reputable by comparison with (some) other newspapers.

    3. JzG

      Re: Climate Change Whistleblower

      Yes, the Mail published that. Turns out it was axe-grinding bullshit (http://www.snopes.com/2017/02/08/noaa-scientists-climate-change-data/). The Mail has a long history of publishing climate change denial, including giving Delingpole a platform.

      Thank you for providing a great example of why the Mail is not trustworthy.

  19. A Non e-mouse Silver badge
    Joke

    Views on Newspapers

    A couple of obligatory YouTube clips about UK newspapers.

    Russell Howard

    Yes Prime Minister

    1. Aladdin Sane Silver badge

      Re: Views on Newspapers

      Sir Humphrey: The only way to understand the Press is to remember that they pander to their readers' prejudices.

      Hacker: Don't tell me about the press, I know exactly who reads the papers: The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country; The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country; The Times is read by people who actually do run the country; the Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country; the Financial Times is read by people who own the country; The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country; and The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.

      Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?

      Bernard: Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits.

  20. This post has been deleted by its author

  21. allthecoolshortnamesweretaken

    "The Register, should be used with caution, ..."

    Well, they have a point - El Reg is not for those of a nervous disposition... which is one of the reasons I'm reading it.

  22. John H Woods Silver badge

    "But Wikipedia itself is actually unreliable and biased on most of the historical or political articles." --AC

    Anyone expecting to find a single reliable source for contentious issues such as history or politics, especially the nearer they are in time, is incredibly naive. One of the best lessons from W is "do not rely on a single source"

    Remember Alexander Pope's words (Essay on Criticism, I think)

    A little learning is a dangerous thing;

    drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:

    there, shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,

    and drinking largely sobers us again.

    1. A Non e-mouse Silver badge

      Isn't the phrase something like "History is written by the victors?"

      There's just been a short series on BBC4 on how English/British history has been massaged and things are a lot more nuanced, complex (and different!) than the school textbooks taught us.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Post-modern truthiness:

      "Anyone expecting to find a single reliable source for contentious issues such as history ..., is incredibly naive. "

      OK, fine. But if all knowledge is subjective, then nothing can be learned. No wonder you love Wikipedia!

  23. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Ever since....

    ...Wikipedia purged that article on Barney Rubble's cocaine habit, I've turned to the Daily Mail for all my celebrity goss.

  24. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    DailyMail

    well, it is daily mail.

    not daily news*

  25. Big_Boomer Silver badge

    Lies!

    Lies in print, or to give them their new buzzword "Fake News" are nothing new. I heard a quote many years ago about how if you see it in print, it's probably not true. No I can't remember the source and don't care to try and find it. Almost everything you see in print (paper, screen, etc.) is either somebodies opinion or else some somebodies opinion of somebody else's opinion.

    I have a somewhat morbid habit of comparing the numbers of deaths/injuries from disasters (natural and deliberate) reported in various media. Some understate the numbers whilst others overstate right up until an official body releases exact numbers at which point they would all use that number. Those that had to sell advertising almost invariably overstated whilst those who didn't usually understated. Try it yourself next time and you will see what I mean.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Fake News Sites...

      Judging from some of the pieces on the BBC "News" web-site, I'm surprised they aren't flagged as unreliable too.

    2. Tannin

      Re: Lies!

      Good points, Big_Boomer. But beware of official statistics too. Yes, obviously they can be slanted by governments with an axe to grind, but even numbers prepared as honestly as possible can be and often are subject to serious error. The classic example usually cited when teaching the benefits and dangers of official statistics is that of Durkheim. Back in the 1890s, Durkheim pioneered the study of suicide. A great deal of careful work with official suicide statistics allowed him, to demonstrate that sociological institutions - notably the church - had a big effect on suicide rates. Catholic societies and families, Durkheim discovered, had significantly lower sucide rates than Protestant ones. He regarded this as a consequence of Catholic teachings about sin. (It was a more subtle and powerful argument than that, but you get the drift.)

      Decades later, other socioligists looked more carefully at his work, and soon discovered that, while Durkheim was indeed onto something real, by far the greater part of what he was observing from his careful work with official statistics was not actual differences in suicide rate, it was differences in the way that deaths were reported, recorded, and classified. Depending on their religious background and the norms of their community, families, police, doctors, coroners, and other officials were more or less likely to find ways to define ambiguous deaths as "suicide" or "non-suicide". Most of the effect he discovered, in other words, was differences in the way official statistics were collected and recorded.

      (I'm tempted to wonder if Wikipedia has an article about this. But if it did, I naturally wouldn't trust it.)

    3. SkippyBing Silver badge

      Re: Lies!

      The 'Fake News' thing amuses me, I've never read, heard or seen a news report on a subject I have a vague knowledge of that hasn't been at best inaccurate and at worst riddled with errors. It seems unlikely that my areas of 'expertise' are particularly special in this regard so to some extent all news is fake to some extent.

      Also Wikipedia apparently still regard Russia Today as a reliable news source...

  26. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "The Register, should be used with caution,..."

    ....especially articles questioning our fund raising or Scientology-like Management structure.

  27. Triggerfish

    XKCD

    Thought I'd get it in first

    https://xkcd.com/978/

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: XKCD

      And for what it's worth, I have in fact on one occasion caught a Daily Mail article ripping a large chunk of text from Wikipedia, without citing their source, too.

  28. LionelB

    The Mail "is no longer considered to be a reliable source and cannot be used to demonstrate notability"

    WTF? So The Mail was previously considered a reliable source?!

  29. Tannin

    Pot, kettle

    I wouldn't regard The Register as a reliable source either. Unless, of course, it is reporting on the 112th Wikipedia fundraising scam. Or any of several other Wikipedia scandals. Or .... well, quite a lot of things really. But although much improved, El Reg still has a lot of sin-bin time to go before it lives down the anti-science disgrace known as .... Hmmm ... can I mention names? Maybe safer not to. At least not on this Page. As I said, much improved these days, but it will be years yet before I'll trust the science articles.

    Oh, and there are those insanely tendentious technical opinion things written by some PR flack or other to spruik his company and its products. You know then ones, they pop up every now and then and stick out like dogs' balls. Which, now that I think about it, says something rather positive about the bulk of El Reg's technical content, which can be and often is very worthwhile indeed. If ever in doubt, the comments pretty much always set one straight.

    1. DropBear Silver badge

      Re: Pot, kettle

      "those insanely tendentious technical opinion things written by some PR flack or other to spruik his company and its products"

      I can heartily recommend Greasemonkey and a suitable filter/hide script. Since I use one I basically forgot those things even exist until you reminded me. Sure, the front page looks startlingly peppered with white blank spots but soon enough you don't even notice that anymore.

  30. Stevie Silver badge

    Bah!

    DrChrissy's comment has made me realize, belatedly, that the entire Wikipedia stance here is a fallacy, specifically an Appeal to Popular Opinion.

    Don't know where that leaves me, since I take anything on that "utility" with a pinch of salt - assuming I have the time to make sense of what it is trying to tell me.

    (For a real doozy example of how not to explain something, open the page on Mechanical Stress).

  31. TeeCee Gold badge

    Wow.

    Bitchfight. Pot v. Kettle. Get your tickets and popcorn now.

  32. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    In a way this seems harsh. For the most part I don't really think the Daily Mail is any more likely to be inaccurate than most other news source (unless you count typos). But there is a certain class of very poor quality stories I see there fairly frequently. It's the ones based solely on some company's marketing release for their latest gadget or the word of someone selling a book on "human trafficking" etc., and reported as if it were proven fact. I'm sure they're not the only media outlet who falls for this kind of thing, but I think most would write these articles just a little more impartially, at least throwing in an occasional "according to" or "allegedly".

    I don't know if this is the kind of content Wikipedia was worried about, but I can see why it might be important to make it harder for interested parties to get their claims into Wikipedia via that route.

  33. JzG

    To be fair, DrChrissy's impression of how the mail is treated when proposed as a source is probably coloured by his involvement in articles on medical quackery, where the Mail has a very specific reputation. For the most part, the Mail is rejected when anyone asks, often reverted if added, but equally often just left unchallenged, because where else are people going to source celebrity gossip?

    The new rule will act as a poke in the ribs to the shruggies. That's its main function.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020