| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
Talking of the words "subtle" and "agenda", the former is just about the last word I'd apply when describing the latter when it comes to the Daily Mail - it could be of course that Wikipedia has a point when it describes the Daily Mail as "generally unreliable" with a history of "poor fact checking, sensationalism and flat-out fabrication".Originally Posted by Wales-Bales
I agree with you, but every entity has it's own agenda. Ultimately, why not let the people decide for themselves? If you know a thing or two about journalism, and I think you do, then you will know all about the tricks of the trade.
Not denying that, but I'd like to think that, even in an increasingly cynical and manipulative world, sometimes decisions are made for reasons of truth and fairness - I'd be loath to use anything that the Mirror printed, to go to a different end of the political spectrum, if I were making the decisions at Wikipedia, but the Mail seems the worst of the lot to me.
The DM are pro-Brexit. Cameron tried to silence them in the run-up to the referendum by asking the owner to fire the editor. And now Wikileaks don't like their anti-globalist stance, so they have decided to exclude them from any discussion regarding globalisation. Wikileaks aren't the only ones who are guilty of this kind of behaviour, and I find this whole war on fake news rather distasteful.The fact is most information is tainted one way or another, so just let the people decide. We are not children.
Are you saying that Wikipedia should allow any old shit?
They don't actually do that, so no need for the misdirection. I shouldn't have to point out that purposly excluding a specific source of information is an entirely different topic.
Not different at all. Every source that they have excluded in the past has been done so deliberately and for a reason. Why should the Mail Online be an exception?
If you think the people should decide for themselves then you should surely agree that they should let anything and everything be a source.
Wikileaks have editors who discuss the validity of the various citations on a per entry basis. The blanket ban of a specific news provider is a different thing altogether, and will likely lead to the suppression of valid information. If they are going to block the DM, they might as well block the BBC too, as they are just as bad when it comes to selective reporting
How many newspapers are banned by Wikipedia? If the mail is one of a select few then doesn't that suggest there is a good reason for that?Wikileaks have editors who discuss the validity of the various citations on a per entry basis. The blanket ban of a specific news provider is a different thing altogether, and will likely lead to the suppression of valid information. If they are going to block the DM, they might as well block the BBC too, as they are just as bad when it comes to selective reporting
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote