AnimeSuki Forums

Draco Spirit · 2017-03-04, 05:44

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ed-agenda.html

As easy as it to argue the Daily Mail has it biases, it also also pretty easy to argue that the BBC and the Independent do too, and it look like to me like Wikipedia trying to warp the bias of it's articles towards the Left by banning Right leaning sources.

Admittedly it's always been pretty bad for political bias in it articles (pick a famous person, any famous person), but only in a scatter shot sort of way. The lean towards quiet deliberate bias worries me as Wikipedia is often the first point of call for many peoples research on subjects.

Dauerlutscher · 2017-03-04, 07:28

The dalymail is not something that deserves to be called "a credible source". Everyone with a sane minde should do what wikipedia is doing.

Draco Spirit · 2017-03-04, 09:29

Most of the major new sources are just as bad through, have you seen the Independent "exclusives" general quality? You either ban them wholesale or you ban none of them. The fact the single out a major Right wing paper in a media with a heavy Left bias by and large isn't reassuring at all.

Jaden · 2017-03-04, 09:57

Wikipedia edit wars in political subjects are resolved with a sort of "source consensus", so if there are enough sources pointing out falsehoods in a Daily Mail article and establishing a contradicting narrative, then the Daily Mail article is disregarded.

So that's how they've built a sort of unofficial whitelist of reliable news sources over the years. But that's not what's going on here. It's the first time I've seen a blacklisting of this sort.

Dauerlutscher · 2017-03-04, 10:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Draco Spirit

Most of the major new sources are just as bad through, have you seen the Independent "exclusives" general quality? You either ban them wholesale or you ban none of them. The fact the single out a major Right wing paper in a media with a heavy Left bias by and large isn't reassuring at all.

I say, booohooo. It's extremely hard to be just as bad as the Dailymail.
Anyway, the Dailymail should not be a credible source for anyone in the first place, so there is no problem with that.

Vallen Chaos Valiant · 2017-03-04, 11:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Draco Spirit

Most of the major new sources are just as bad through, have you seen the Independent "exclusives" general quality? You either ban them wholesale or you ban none of them. The fact the single out a major Right wing paper in a media with a heavy Left bias by and large isn't reassuring at all.

At this point, I no longer care what the "Right" thinks when outright lies are being spread as truth. If you don't want to know reality then fine, but leave Wikipedia alone. It is suppose to be a source of knowledge.

Archon_Wing · 2017-03-04, 11:25

Not sure what the problem is here. It's not being targeted because it's right-wing, it's because it's notorious enough on a consistent basis.

it's the same reason why nobody would take you seriously if you quote the National Inquirer. Yea, there are many sources that have problems but some are particularly special; it doesn't mean you can create a false equivalency.

Since folks are so afraid of rightists being persecuted, here's a safe source for you:
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2017/02/...as-source.html

Toukairin · 2017-03-04, 11:30

People piss on the Daily Mail for the same reason others piss on The Sun or the National Enquirer. I don't think anyone needs to draw a picture in explaining why.

Draco Spirit · 2017-03-04, 11:35

The Left is arguable worse. If you only listen to the Left leaning media sources, the you conclude that half of the UK are racist Nazi's and idiots for voting for Brexit. The Independent make a daily habit of released a "Briexit has doomed us all" and the BBC practically had "Lets all vote for Clinton sign folks!" during the America elections (and like calling Trump Hitler a lot too http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37703416 )

Purely targeting one newspaper the real big issue here. Since there many many news sources that are political and run questionable stories.

Archon_Wing · 2017-03-04, 11:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Draco Spirit

The Left is arguable worse. If you only listen to the Left leaning media sources, the you conclude that half of the UK are racist Nazi's and idiots for voting for Brexit. The Independent make a daily habit of released a "Briexit has doomed us all" and the BBC practically had "Lets all vote for Clinton sign folks!" during the America elections (and like calling Trump Hitler a lot too http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37703416 )

Purely targeting one newspaper the real big issue here. Since there many many news sources that are political and run questionable stories.

So let me clarify this; are you saying that BBC article is calling Trump Hitler?

Eisdrache · 2017-03-04, 11:52

Personally I believe this to be a dangerous move. Who sets the line where credible begins? Wiki also cites several other media that are just as susceptible to publish badly researched or blatantly false news, will they be the next targets? What if the other side, whoever that might entail, now starts equating the wiki with being unreliable? Their followers will support that claim and in the end we might end up in a climate in which both sides will only believe their own articles. In my eyes exchange is important and even the worst extremes of both sides should be allowed to the discussion. It should be the educated decision of every person themselves which sources they weigh how much.

Dauerlutscher · 2017-03-04, 12:00

So we should also accept Breitbart as a source to have both sides at a discussion, even when it's clear that it is full of lies?

Jaden · 2017-03-04, 12:08

Breitbart can be accepted as a source in rare cases, when there is a lack of relevant mainstream reporting. Things like Russia Today can be also. Some sources have always been treated as more credible than others, but to my knowledge, none have been banned sitewide before.

Vallen Chaos Valiant · 2017-03-04, 12:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaden

Breitbart can be accepted as a source in rare cases, when there is a lack of relevant mainstream reporting.

I note that you never considered it a requirement that the "news" to actually be true.
You are saying it is fine to source complete fabrications from a single paper, if no one else want to print such drivel?

Draco Spirit · 2017-03-04, 12:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eisdrache

Personally I believe this to be a dangerous move. Who sets the line where credible begins? Wiki also cites several other media that are just as susceptible to publish badly researched or blatantly false news, will they be the next targets? What if the other side, whoever that might entail, now starts equating the wiki with being unreliable? Their followers will support that claim and in the end we might end up in a climate in which both sides will only believe their own articles. In my eyes exchange is important and even the worst extremes of both sides should be allowed to the discussion. It should be the educated decision of every person themselves which sources they weigh how much.

Exactly. I don't know why they don't just make a broad label like TV Tropes YMMV (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/YMMV/HomePage) so people understand that there going to be elements of political bias they may or may not agree with. There enough people getting 'Bubbled' as it is in other places, without Wikipedia getting turned into one too.

Archon_Wing · 2017-03-04, 12:45

Tvtropes makes no pretensions of being factual. It's for entertainment and YMMV is generally the place to provide for rants.

Somehow the censorship is greater on that site, as they blatantly push their agenda against things they don't like.

Haak · 2017-03-04, 13:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Draco Spirit

The Left is arguable worse. If you only listen to the Left leaning media sources, the you conclude that half of the UK are racist Nazi's and idiots for voting for Brexit. The Independent make a daily habit of released a "Briexit has doomed us all" and the BBC practically had "Lets all vote for Clinton sign folks!" during the America elections (and like calling Trump Hitler a lot too http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37703416 )

Purely targeting one newspaper the real big issue here. Since there many many news sources that are political and run questionable stories.

Do you understand the concept of an opinion piece?

Eisdrache · 2017-03-04, 13:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dauerlutscher

So we should also accept Breitbart as a source to have both sides at a discussion, even when it's clear that it is full of lies?

Yes.

Regardless of whether or not one side is clearly false, it is important to show why they are wrong as well as provide a better solution [depending on context] while not dismissing the other side as ignorant. Ostracizing an argument will only serve to enlarge the rift even if your side is factually correct.

Also Freedom of speech also counts for opinions you dislike as well. You're free to express your opinion anywhere but not where we can see it is the exact opposite of that. Or as Evelyn Beatrice Hall put it:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evelyn Beatrice Hall

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

mangamuscle · 2017-03-04, 14:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eisdrache

Regardless of whether or not one side is clearly false, it is important to show why they are wrong as well as provide a better solution [depending on context] while not dismissing the other side as ignorant. Ostracizing an argument will only serve to enlarge the rift even if your side is factually correct.

You are confusing Freedom of Speech with Freedom to soapbox. Whether it is wikipedia, cnn, ann or this very site, they have the right to make their rules (i.e. no soapboxing and/or no fake news) and even kick out users who don't follow suit, because it is "their lawn". Anyone can buy a computer, install apache and point a domain name towards it and do or say whatever, there you can be on top of your soapboax 24x7.

Vallen Chaos Valiant · 2017-03-04, 14:35

Freedom of Speech does not mean freedom to be a source. Wikipedia require sources with credibility.

As was once mentioned by xkcd, if your only argument about your speech is "it isn't illegal", then you have no justification to be taken seriously. Wikipedia is meant to prune lies, it is not suppose to treat lies the same as it treats facts.

To pull "Freedom of Speech" card for trying to make false info permitted on Wikipedia. is actually evil.

2017-03-04, 05:44	Link #1
Draco Spirit Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2013	Wikipedia ban's the Dailymail http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ed-agenda.html As easy as it to argue the Daily Mail has it biases, it also also pretty easy to argue that the BBC and the Independent do too, and it look like to me like Wikipedia trying to warp the bias of it's articles towards the Left by banning Right leaning sources. Admittedly it's always been pretty bad for political bias in it articles (pick a famous person, any famous person), but only in a scatter shot sort of way. The lean towards quiet deliberate bias worries me as Wikipedia is often the first point of call for many peoples research on subjects.

2017-03-04, 09:57	Link #4
Jaden Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006	Wikipedia edit wars in political subjects are resolved with a sort of "source consensus", so if there are enough sources pointing out falsehoods in a Daily Mail article and establishing a contradicting narrative, then the Daily Mail article is disregarded. So that's how they've built a sort of unofficial whitelist of reliable news sources over the years. But that's not what's going on here. It's the first time I've seen a blacklisting of this sort. __________________

2017-03-04, 12:08	Link #13
Jaden Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006	Breitbart can be accepted as a source in rare cases, when there is a lack of relevant mainstream reporting. Things like Russia Today can be also. Some sources have always been treated as more credible than others, but to my knowledge, none have been banned sitewide before. __________________

2017-03-04, 14:35	Link #20
Vallen Chaos Valiant Logician and Romantic Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Within my mind Age: 43	Freedom of Speech does not mean freedom to be a source. Wikipedia require sources with credibility. As was once mentioned by xkcd, if your only argument about your speech is "it isn't illegal", then you have no justification to be taken seriously. Wikipedia is meant to prune lies, it is not suppose to treat lies the same as it treats facts. To pull "Freedom of Speech" card for trying to make false info permitted on Wikipedia. is actually evil. __________________

2017-03-04, 07:28	Link #2
Dauerlutscher Marauder Shields Join Date: Sep 2012	The dalymail is not something that deserves to be called "a credible source". Everyone with a sane minde should do what wikipedia is doing.

2017-03-04, 09:29	Link #3
Draco Spirit Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2013	Most of the major new sources are just as bad through, have you seen the Independent "exclusives" general quality? You either ban them wholesale or you ban none of them. The fact the single out a major Right wing paper in a media with a heavy Left bias by and large isn't reassuring at all.

2017-03-04, 11:30	Link #8
Toukairin Banned Join Date: Jan 2017 Location: A city with a small mountain in the middle	People piss on the Daily Mail for the same reason others piss on The Sun or the National Enquirer. I don't think anyone needs to draw a picture in explaining why.

2017-03-04, 11:35	Link #9
Draco Spirit Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2013	The Left is arguable worse. If you only listen to the Left leaning media sources, the you conclude that half of the UK are racist Nazi's and idiots for voting for Brexit. The Independent make a daily habit of released a "Briexit has doomed us all" and the BBC practically had "Lets all vote for Clinton sign folks!" during the America elections (and like calling Trump Hitler a lot too http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37703416 ) Purely targeting one newspaper the real big issue here. Since there many many news sources that are political and run questionable stories.

2017-03-04, 11:52	Link #11
Eisdrache Part-time misanthrope Join Date: Mar 2007	Personally I believe this to be a dangerous move. Who sets the line where credible begins? Wiki also cites several other media that are just as susceptible to publish badly researched or blatantly false news, will they be the next targets? What if the other side, whoever that might entail, now starts equating the wiki with being unreliable? Their followers will support that claim and in the end we might end up in a climate in which both sides will only believe their own articles. In my eyes exchange is important and even the worst extremes of both sides should be allowed to the discussion. It should be the educated decision of every person themselves which sources they weigh how much.

2017-03-04, 12:00	Link #12
Dauerlutscher Marauder Shields Join Date: Sep 2012	So we should also accept Breitbart as a source to have both sides at a discussion, even when it's clear that it is full of lies?