Wikipedia bans the Daily Mail as a source for being 'unreliable'

[woohoo]

I regularly troll the Guardian BTL, and they are ready to wield the post delet button, but not the banhammer. I wonder what the OP did?

Disagreed with an article and got a load of likes, it was deleted then I was banned, well still able to log in but not make comments. I emailed them asking why I was banned and they said they would investigate but nothing back. I quoted back to them their terms and conditions for banning and asked which one I broke but nothing.

Signed up again while later, made comments for a while but then disagreed and was banned.

I tend to read the ny times now, best of the lot.

[Mordac]

The difference is that The Guardian and other serious news papers do fact checking before publishing anything, they will give their own spin to the stories left or right wing, but the event they are reporting on was real, as long as you realise that, you can make up your own mind.
The DM comes up with totally made up stories and simpleton derelict coastal town UKIP voters take that as the full truth..

There used to be a website called "FactCheckingPolly" or something similar, specifically for the purpose of tearing Ms Toynbee's column apart.
To be fair to the Graun, they do publish a daily list of "Corrections & Clarifications", where they do list the bits they got wrong. Today's for example, apologises for saying the Royal Marines are part of the Army (it's the Navy), and that they got some NHS stats wrong (they were overly pessimistic, natch).

[northernladyuk]

It's their comments section for people who read the Guardian... expecting an open forum is naive!

I regularly troll the Guardian BTL, and they are ready to wield the post delet button, but not the banhammer. I wonder what the OP did?

[NotAllThere]

... the DM just makes stuff up or says "some people claim..."

Well it's true, because the DM journalist who wrote is a person, and he or she is claiming it.

[d000hg]

Guardian banned me from the comments section twice for disagreeing with the article. Just disagreeing, not trolling or being nasty just stating a different opinion.

So based on my experience the guardian lives in a bubble, they present news that furthers their views and they don't tolerate anyone that disagrees. The Guardian is the trump of newspapers. The independent is drivel. The daily mail is actually quite fun as long as you don't regard it as a newspaper.

It's their comments section for people who read the Guardian... expecting an open forum is naive!

[northernladyuk]

Guardian banned me from the comments section twice for disagreeing with the article. Just disagreeing, not trolling or being nasty just stating a different opinion.

So based on my experience the guardian lives in a bubble, they present news that furthers their views and they don't tolerate anyone that disagrees. The Guardian is the trump of newspapers. The independent is drivel. The daily mail is actually quite fun as long as you don't regard it as a newspaper.

The Telegraph is similar to the Guardian in this respect, but they are both quality newspapers, and I read both of them. However, the Mail is best summed up by:

[woohoo]

The Guardian is certainly as opinionated as the DM, but is it really as unreliable for the basic facts? Most of their stories seem to link to some sort of source even if their argument is often totally at odds with or making a lefty inference from what the source says; the DM just makes stuff up or says "some people claim..."

Guardian banned me from the comments section twice for disagreeing with the article. Just disagreeing, not trolling or being nasty just stating a different opinion.

So based on my experience the guardian lives in a bubble, they present news that furthers their views and they don't tolerate anyone that disagrees. The Guardian is the trump of newspapers. The independent is drivel. The daily mail is actually quite fun as long as you don't regard it as a newspaper.

[Eirikur]

The Guardian is certainly as opinionated as the DM, but is it really as unreliable for the basic facts? Most of their stories seem to link to some sort of source even if their argument is often totally at odds with or making a lefty inference from what the source says; the DM just makes stuff up or says "some people claim..."

The difference is that The Guardian and other serious news papers do fact checking before publishing anything, they will give their own spin to the stories left or right wing, but the event they are reporting on was real, as long as you realise that, you can make up your own mind.
The DM comes up with totally made up stories and simpleton derelict coastal town UKIP voters take that as the full truth..

[d000hg]

The Guardian is certainly as opinionated as the DM, but is it really as unreliable for the basic facts? Most of their stories seem to link to some sort of source even if their argument is often totally at odds with or making a lefty inference from what the source says; the DM just makes stuff up or says "some people claim..."

[PeterSon55]

guess daily mail should fabricate a false wikipedia page and write that wikipedia is the most unreliable source ever

[northernladuk]

KUATB

http://forums.contractoruk.com/gener...ost-truth.html

Yeah but post has a Guardian link which is just as unreliable and untrustworthy...

Mine is the Independent so completely trustworthy ... :..

But anyway...

[MrMarkyMark]

The general themes of the support votes centred on the Daily Mail's reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication."

I must admit is does ring a bell, also, when taking into a consideration a lot of the posters on here.

For that reason and that only reason I'm out

[Mordac]

KUATB

http://forums.contractoruk.com/gener...ost-truth.html

[northernladuk]

The general themes of the support votes centred on the Daily Mail's reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication."

Never!!!!!!

Maybe we should do the same?

Wikipedia bans the Daily Mail as a source for being 'unreliable' | The Independent