BrianFNewman (talk | contribs) |
BrianFNewman (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 166: | Line 166: | ||
*I'm good with all four. Count me out of the pedantic nonsense that says we need a source that uses the word "widely" before we can write "widely" in our own text. If there are a good many sources of sufficient quality criticising this newspaper's stories for being unreliable and inaccurate, then it has been "widely" criticised along those lines. [[User:Nomoskedasticity|Nomoskedasticity]] ([[User talk:Nomoskedasticity|talk]]) 05:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC) |
*I'm good with all four. Count me out of the pedantic nonsense that says we need a source that uses the word "widely" before we can write "widely" in our own text. If there are a good many sources of sufficient quality criticising this newspaper's stories for being unreliable and inaccurate, then it has been "widely" criticised along those lines. [[User:Nomoskedasticity|Nomoskedasticity]] ([[User talk:Nomoskedasticity|talk]]) 05:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC) |
||
:*[[u|Nomoskedasticity]], policy does not say that sources must have the same wording, just that they convey the same meaning, in this case that the ''Daily Mail'' is considered unreliable by informed observers. We are opening ourselves up to right-wing editors finding a bunch of columns by conservatives and making making claims that fascism is left-wing or whatever the latest theory in the echo chamber is. Besides, it would be ironic to ignore Wikipedia policy of reliable sources in order to say that another publication is unreliable. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 19:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC) |
:*[[u|Nomoskedasticity]], policy does not say that sources must have the same wording, just that they convey the same meaning, in this case that the ''Daily Mail'' is considered unreliable by informed observers. We are opening ourselves up to right-wing editors finding a bunch of columns by conservatives and making making claims that fascism is left-wing or whatever the latest theory in the echo chamber is. Besides, it would be ironic to ignore Wikipedia policy of reliable sources in order to say that another publication is unreliable. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 19:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC) |
||
::* I'd say the real risk is the Mail simply being able to point out that the Wikipedia community are hypocrites, that they are people who expect others to do what they can't or won't, and for reasons other than the obvious drawbacks of this being an entirely decentralised volunteer effort with no legal or even moral responsibility to do the right thing. And certainly with no regulator to answer to when they don't. It being the case that all but a few Wikipedia policies are entirely optional, easily overridden by the community, if it wishes, even the requirement to cite statements to reliable sources, and not deviate from what they say just because they want to. And of course, not having to work very hard to persuade people why The Guardian might not consider that aspect of Wikipedia to be worth reporting. [[User:BrianFNewman|BrianFNewman]] ([[User talk:BrianFNewman|talk]]) 20:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*See [[#Sourcing_concerns]] above. Guest2625 started a thread for discussing each source cited for the sentence. So far, one source (forbes.com) has been removed, one source (themediafund.org) is the current focus, others merit discussion. I hope that this RfC will not cause derailment of the attempt to look at the sources individually. [[User:Peter Gulutzan|Peter Gulutzan]] ([[User talk:Peter Gulutzan|talk]]) 14:02, 27 July 2020 (UTC) |
*See [[#Sourcing_concerns]] above. Guest2625 started a thread for discussing each source cited for the sentence. So far, one source (forbes.com) has been removed, one source (themediafund.org) is the current focus, others merit discussion. I hope that this RfC will not cause derailment of the attempt to look at the sources individually. [[User:Peter Gulutzan|Peter Gulutzan]] ([[User talk:Peter Gulutzan|talk]]) 14:02, 27 July 2020 (UTC) |
||
**This is a proper RFC that's getting proper answers already, so it's fine - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 14:19, 27 July 2020 (UTC) |
**This is a proper RFC that's getting proper answers already, so it's fine - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 14:19, 27 July 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:37, 27 July 2020
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
No article reference to being identified as an unreliable WP source
IMHO, it seems noteworthy that this article should have an entry somewhere that it is no longer accepted as a reliable source for other WP articles as determined by a consensus of the WP editorial community. RS Noticeboard. § Music Sorter § (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Here's a business insider article about it https://www.businessinsider.com/wikipedia-has-banned-the-daily-mail-as-an-unreliable-source-2017-2?IR=T Bacondrum (talk) 00:57, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- Quote. "Some of those who opposed the ban also pointed to inaccurate stories in other respected publications, and suggested the proposed ban was driven by a dislike of the publication." There is a rabid hatred of the right wing Daily Mail by left wingers which is behind this campaign to see it branded as dishonest. Mention it online, as I do on QUORA and the hatred and bile just pours out. Such people are what is behind the wikipedia ban.(185.8.243.175 (talk) 05:48, 29 November 2019 (UTC))
I find it hilarious that some editors are questioning the reliability of lower-quality sources that criticize Thae Daily Mail despite them being far more reliable than The Daily Mail Itself. Per WP:PARITY "Parity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources". In essence, mainstream sources don't talk about The Daily Mail for the same reason that they don't talk about Infowars claiming that the US government kidnaps children and makes them slaves at our martian colony. Do a web search. Virtually every source that bothers to comment on the reliability of The Daily Mail talks about how unreliable it is. Pretty much nobody defends it. To get a good idea of how widely criticised for its unreliability The Daily <ail is, just do a web search about Wikipedia deprecating it as a source -- something that was covered in multiple high quality sources. Count how many that say the Wikipedia was wrong and that The Daily Mail is reliable. Now count how many say "about time! What took you so long?". --Guy Macon (talk) 15:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Guy Macon: Infowars was covered by John Oliver in 2017. For The Daily Mail you could use The Mash Report. Here are some quotes:
- 2018-01-18:
Well, Nish, as ever, the Daily Mail provides a very good barometer of the British public, with this headline, which actually happened... Sociologist Carolann Peterson says in the article... Nish, it's an absolute minefield! What could possibly be wrong with spanking a colleague?! Or the prospect of a sudden arm grabbing you from the shadows?! Hang on, are these real headlines? They're real, Nish! They're genuine headlines! Welcome to the world!
- 2018-02-01:
Where did you pick that outfit, General White Man Emporium? Yeah, whatever. What about you? You got anything? You're like the Daily Mail's wet dream. Not bad.
- 2018-02-15:
I feels like for most of my adult life the only things we talk about are "immigration" and "how we never talk about immigration". Also Bake Off. And then there was the time where we combined them both, when Nadiya Hussain was in it and the Daily Mail lost their mind and suggested that now to win you needed to make a "chocolate mosque".
- Also:
The writer Liz Gerard found that between 1st January and the date of the referendum, the Daily Mail and the Daily Express each published 34 front-page articles about immigration. In case you were wondering, none of them were positive.
- 2019-02-26: It appears to have been mentioned, but you'll have to look up the episode. Should be about three quarters or so in.
- 2020-04-03:
Johnson next addressed the public on March the 12th and was uncharacteristically serious. The Daily Mail called on its leaders to trust the judgment of the government, but according to the Guardian, on the same day, an internal e-mail at the Mail's parent company advised non-editorial staff to work from home because government advice was no longer adequate. The Prime Minister had lost the confidence of the paper whose previous criticisms of him amounted to: "perhaps his dick is too big and nice."
- Hope that helps. - Alexis Jazz 20:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request
Please add this under " The Daily Mail in literature":
In the Harry Potter book series, Vernon Dursley is a Daily Mail Reader. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chox2019 (talk • contribs) 11:57, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
- Not done per WP:IPC –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, page 23: "'Uncle Vernon's large red face was hidden behind the morning's Daily Mail." https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=1Vs9AwAAQBAJ&pg=PA29&lpg=PA29&dq=%22%27Uncle+Vernon%27s+large+red+face+was+hidden+behind+the+morning%27s+Daily+Mail.%22&source=bl&ots=uxzDgrzTJk&sig=ACfU3U2MsCdxF2a0YBEZHuhAR6-pKGuERw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi5kYHwkpTlAhVEalAKHdgLCdcQ6AEwAXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22'Uncle%20Vernon's%20large%20red%20face%20was%20hidden%20behind%20the%20morning's%20Daily%20Mail.%22&f=false
Quoting Jimmy Wales
Masem on June 16 inserted with edit summary = "Jimmy Wales' support of WP decision to deprecate DM". I object. First, saying "decision by the community" and "the community's choice" is not backed by an RS. Second, it's piling on, because we already have quoted Wikipedians' criticisms and the long (44-word) quote from Jimmy Wales is not adding fact it is just adding another Wikipedian's criticism. Third, if CNBC is regarded as RS for the quote, then CNBC's word "banned" is what's being supported, not the paragraph's incorrect word "deprecated". Fourth, although I accept that for Wikipedia-policy reasons we cannot cite the objections that the Daily Mail made at the time, I see no reason that Masem took only Mr Wales's criticism, and left out the response from the very same article, such as:
"Only today Anthony Weiner has pleaded guilty to sexting with a minor as a direct result of an investigation last year by DailyMail.com. We will be interested to see who Wikipedia cites as the story’s source", the media group added.
Indeed they will be, if they become aware of this (part of the David Gerard edit series, eliminating a credit of the Daily Mail for the Anthony Weiner story). Is there consensus for Masem's edit? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- This appears to be a proxy for attempting to relitigate WP:DAILYMAIL. We already know the Daily Mail cannot be trusted for claims about itself. Is there third-party notability of the DM breaking the story? If there is, then use that - David Gerard (talk) 17:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, and to answer the question: Masem's edit looks fine to me. It's a relevant person's opinion on the topic to hand (the deprecation of the DM), cited to an RS - David Gerard (talk) 17:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- And as best I know, Jimmy took no part in the discussions at all (I don't believe any WMF staffer did in their capacity as a WMF staffer) so this would make it a confirmation from someone of WMF-type authority that the community did a reasonable thing if the purpose of WP is to use high-quality reliable sources to build a quality encyclopedia. --Masem (t) 17:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Why did you not choose the CEO then? She was widely quoted. And why do you think this confirmation is relevant at all? It wouldn't matter if they disagreed, but it certainly would be worth noting if they had. It certainly seems to be entirely unsurprising that Mr Wales hates the Mail, and the Mail specifically. He was after all, a member of the board of The Guardian at the time. BorkNein (talk) 19:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)- This statement surprised me, but it's true if it means "at the time of the RfC". Mr Wales joined The Guardian board in January 2016, WP:DAILYMAIL was closed in February 2017, Mr Wales left the board in April 2017. The interview was published in May 2017. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
- And as best I know, Jimmy took no part in the discussions at all (I don't believe any WMF staffer did in their capacity as a WMF staffer) so this would make it a confirmation from someone of WMF-type authority that the community did a reasonable thing if the purpose of WP is to use high-quality reliable sources to build a quality encyclopedia. --Masem (t) 17:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think it should be included. It's a passing comment by Jimbo in one source. We wouldn't even be discussing it if this weren't a Wikipedia article. Even the source only mentions it because it is relevant to a website that Jimbo was setting up. TFD (talk) 23:53, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- So at this point Masem's edit lacks consensus. But I'm not reverting unless I see more objections. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Why does the passage imply a causal connection between Jimmy Wales's view, and the Mail's response? I tried to correct this misleading statement by simply removing "Though the Daily Mail strongly contested this decision by the community," but I was obstructed by David Gerard, for reasons I am not clear on. BorkNein (talk) 18:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Best-selling UK newspaper
Just a note that The Daily Mail is now UK's best-selling newspaper, overtaking the Sun - [1]. I'm not sure whether the lead needs to be changed now since it may be temporary, but just thought it may need mentioning. I don't think it is worth mentioning Metro in the lead since it is a free newspaper and its circulation figure is pretty meaningless. Hzh (talk) 23:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
- Just added that to the lead, also current newspaper of the year Piecesofuk (talk) 05:04, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Daily Mail eclipses the Sun to become UK's top-selling paper https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jun/19/daily-mail-eclipses-the-sun-to-become-uks-top-selling-paper?utm_term=RWRpdG9yaWFsX0d1YXJkaWFuVG9kYXlVS19XZWVrZW5kLTIwMDYyMA%3D%3D&utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&CMP=GTUK_email&utm_campaign=GuardianTodayUK
The Daily Mail sold 980,000 copies a day on average last month, and the Mail on Sunday sold 878,000 a week, according to the Audit Bureau of Circulations figures published on Friday.
Peter K Burian (talk) 13:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Sourcing concerns
Like five other editors I have concerns regarding the sourcing of the clause:
My previous comment regarding this issue was, unfortunately, deleted from the talk page and archive because of a technical problem. The concern regarding the sourcing of the clause mirrors that of the other editors. The word "widely" in the clause is a controversial statement and should not depend on the analysis of wikipedia editors. The reliable source which analyses the data (i.e. criticism because of unreliability) needs to make that conclusion. The sources provided do not state anywhere "widely". The editors who want to include the word "widely" have not provided a quote which could be interpreted as saying this. Most of the inline citations provided are of poor quality:
- The first cite Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' source does not have the Guardian say in its own voice that the Daily Mail is unreliable. It merely states the position of wikipedia. This citation should not be used. There is conflict of interest and wikipedia should not be referencing itself as a reliable source.
- The second cite Daily Mail: Most Unreliable Paper For 3rd Year In A Row is a low caliber source which is ultimately based on a blog source. The usage of IPSO for analyzing reliability is a decent approach, however, no consideration was given for the number of stories published by each newspaper. Obviously, a newspaper which publishes few stories will need few corrections.
- The third cite Mail Supremacy does not state that the Daily Mail is unreliable, rather it discusses that it uses all kinds of bells and whistles and flashing lights to increase viewership.
- The fourth cite The Daily Mail cancer story that torpedoes itself in paragraph 19 is an opinion piece; however, if this is overlooked, it is a decent source for stating that the Guardian has criticized the Daily Mail for unreliability.
- The fifth cite Will Drinking Diet Soda Increase Your Risk For A Heart Attack? is problematic since it is a Forbes article by a non-staff writer which uses a blog award to make its case. The source should not be included. It is not clear if the blog award is being serious and what qualification the blogger has in media analysis.
- The sixth cite I am unable to access and no page number has been provided for where it supports the relevant claim. Also it should be noted that the book is by Ben Goldacre who wrote the Guardian opinion piece in the fourth cite.
In conclusion, the word "widely" is not supported by the sources and should be removed. I look forward to a cordial discussion on the topic. If individuals wish to repost their comments or make new comments that will all help to move this discussion along. --Guest2625 (talk) 07:35, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- After this discussion began, David Gerard has removed the fifth cite (forbes.com). Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- yes, it was a Forbes contributor blog and so not an RS - David Gerard (talk) 05:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- After this discussion began, David Gerard has removed the fifth cite (forbes.com). Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ Jackson, Jasper (9 February 2017). "Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' source". The Guardian. Retrieved 11 February 2017.
- ^ "Daily Mail: Most Unreliable Paper For 3rd Year In A Row". The Media Fund. Retrieved 8 July 2020.
- ^ Collins, Lauren (April 2012). "Mail Supremacy". The New Yorker. Retrieved 12 January 2016.
- ^ Goldacre, Ben. "The Daily Mail cancer story that torpedoes itself in paragraph 19". The Guardian. Retrieved 1 August 2015.
- ^ Trevor Butterworth (21 February 2012). "Will Drinking Diet Soda Increase Your Risk for a Heart Attack?". Forbes. Retrieved 12 March 2012.
"Research" has also revealed the risk of the Daily Mail misreporting a study's findings, especially when there's an opportunity to write an alarming headline. As Dorothy Bishop, a Professor of Neurodevelopmental Psychology at Oxford University, noted in giving the paper her "Orwellian Award for Journalistic Misrepresentation" the Mail sets the standards for inaccurate reporting of academic research.
- ^ Goldacre, Ben (2008). Bad science. London: Fourth Estate. ISBN 9780007240197.
- Guest2625 has said it all well so I don't need to repeat all my earlier comments, except to remind that the wording is due to a now-blocked user. I'd favour removing not just "widely" but the whole poorly sourced sentence, although perhaps it would be acceptable to attribute properly e.g. "People associated with The Guardian (named here) have criticised ..." and move outside the lead. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Please note that the exact phrase "The Daily Mail has been widely criticized for its unreliability" is no longer in the article. The first mention of "widely" is in the fourth paragraph:
- "The Daily Mail has been noted for its unreliability and widely criticised for its printing of sensationalist and inaccurate scare stories of science and medical research, and for copyright violations. The Daily Mail has won a number of awards, including receiving the National Newspaper of the Year award from the British Press Awards eight times since 1995, winning again in 2019."
--Guy Macon (talk) 13:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- Great. It looks like things are moving along. The location of "widely", however, still remains a problem. As other editors have mentioned, the location of this sentence is problematic. Questions of due weight come up. The lead is meant to summarize the body of the article. The word "widely", now proceeding the second clause, is not supported anywhere in the body of the article. If someone disagrees, please provide a quote from the body of the article which supports this claim. A productive way to proceed to sort out the sourcing problem, would be to step-by-step go through the concerns raised regarding the sources. The exact order doesn't really matter, because some of the concerns are more difficult to resolve.
- In conclusion, the word "widely" is not supported by the body of the article or its sources, and should be removed.--Guest2625 (talk) 02:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- Guest2625, you mean there are people who don't consider the Daily Mail unreliable? I'ts OK, there is an educational video to help them. Guy (help!) 08:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- For those who genuinely don't know and might be misled into clicking the link, that's not a "educational video", it's just an asshole who thinks he's funny. BrianFNewman (talk) 20:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
I think the only remotely relevant source for saying anything about the Mail, at least without a big warning sign that says "caution, this comes from a random blogger or is just the opinion of The Guardian", or otherwise identify the source, is the New Yorker piece, for all the reasons you state. As the title suggests, it is a pretty glowing write up, and seems to offer more reasons to admire the Mail, rather than decry it. It's incredibly long though, so it might be useful to try and extract the parts of it which are actually criticisms, establish what is being said and who is saying it, with a view to deciding whether it would be fair to extract them as a standalone pieces of criticism, be they generic or example based. BrianFNewman (talk) 20:15, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Evaluating the concerns
Alright. Let's begin to evaluate the concerns as a group:
Is The Media Fund a reliable source?
- No. The Media Fund is not a reliable source. It has no editorial board. It does not have a section for corrections. There appears to be only one individual (i.e. Steven Durrant) operating the site. There is no indication that Steven Durrant is an expert in media analysis. The website is a self-published source and should be removed from the article. I encourage anyone who agrees to be bold and remove the source, so that we waste no more time deconstructing the reliability of this source. You can contribute below with yes/no/comment if you wish to join the conversation. --Guest2625 (talk) 08:52, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- No. This was added on July 8 by Czello who said "Let's discuss this on the talk page" but didn't, so far. Guy Macon has posted a notice on WP:RSN about sourcing disputes here but so far as I can see has not tried to defend using themediafund.org, so far. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- That's because I understand the difference between asking whether a source is reliable and deciding that it is or isn't reliable before asking the question. I am not a big fan of asking a question when you have already decided that there is only one answer you will accept. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:52, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- +1. -sche (talk) 21:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- -1. Perhaps the indenting is wrong? I asked no question, I answered Guest2625's question, which is done in a conventional style that I've seen many times. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- The indenting is fine. You said something about my behavior: "Guy Macon has posted a notice on WP:RSN about sourcing disputes here but so far as I can see has not tried to defend using themediafund.org, so far." I explained my behavior: "That's because I understand the difference between asking whether a source is reliable and deciding that it is or isn't reliable before asking the question." Could it be that you are so used to seeing aggressive people make assertions and post arguments in the form of a question that you no longer understand when some of us ask actual questions because we want answers? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- Since the indenting is deliberate, then this comment was addressed to me: "I am not a big fan of asking a question when you have already decided that there is only one answer you will accept." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:32, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- The indenting is fine. You said something about my behavior: "Guy Macon has posted a notice on WP:RSN about sourcing disputes here but so far as I can see has not tried to defend using themediafund.org, so far." I explained my behavior: "That's because I understand the difference between asking whether a source is reliable and deciding that it is or isn't reliable before asking the question." Could it be that you are so used to seeing aggressive people make assertions and post arguments in the form of a question that you no longer understand when some of us ask actual questions because we want answers? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- That's because I understand the difference between asking whether a source is reliable and deciding that it is or isn't reliable before asking the question. I am not a big fan of asking a question when you have already decided that there is only one answer you will accept. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:52, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I added this initially as (the now banned) BorkNein wanted additional sources. That said, if it's been determined to not be reliable I have no qualms in it being removed. — Czello 15:00, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I have asked for further input on the reliable noticeboard concerning the above question in a more narrow fashion than Guy Macon here. --Guest2625 (talk) 04:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- Not seeing any indication of this, though the facts are trivially verified from the primary source. Guy (help!) 08:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- No per Guest. BrianFNewman (talk) 20:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Is there a conflict of interest when Wikipedia partially uses its own opinion to label a newspaper unreliable in the lead?
- Comment I will wait to formulate my opinion in order not to sway other people's opinions. --Guest2625 (talk) 04:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- No, that's ridiculous - David Gerard (talk) 05:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- Ha ha ha ha! No. Guy (help!) 08:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, since it is well known that both the Wikipedia community and the executive leadership of the Wikimedia Foundation considers the Mail to be fake news, and this was quite clearly not the result of a thoughtful academic exercise, but in large part, a pre-existing almost visceral hatred. They are therefore the very last people you would assume weren't swayed by their own opinion when purporting to give the opinion of Wikipedia, a neutral encyclopedia, on the reliability of the Mail, in a Wikipedia article. But this is moot anyway, which (hopefully) explains the mockery above, since the Wikipedia community and the executive leadership are not considered a reliable source (hence why Wikipedia itself, is not considered reliable either), so by rule, they cannot be used to support any claim being made in the encyclopedia, regardless of any issue of a conflict of interest. Other than their own opinion, of course. And that has as much value as anyone wishes to ascribe to it, which, based on reliable sources, is not much. This ban, for example, was briefly reported, as a newsworthy development in internet culture, but it doesn't appear to have changed anything in the real world. BrianFNewman (talk) 19:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)— BrianFNewman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
RfC on the inclusion of certain statements about unreliability and inaccuracy
1) Should the lead say the Dail Mail "has been noted for its unreliability
", and if so, 2) should it say it has been "widely
" noted for that? 3) Should it say the Daily Mail has been "criticised for its printing of sensationalist and inaccurate scare stories of science and medical research
", and if so, 4) should it say it has been "widely
" criticised for that? -sche (talk) 21:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- In the interest of having (what I hope is) a neutrally-constructed RfC, after two prior RfCs by a now-blocked user (one of which was early-closed and archived and the other of which was simply erased) and a number of other discussions and comments (including by socks of that user) which have been described as not being neutrally constructed or structured, I have started the RfC above closely following wording discussed previously. -sche (talk) 21:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- 1, 3 and 4: yes, based on the sources cited in the article at present and those provided by ReconditeRodent and Guy Macon (Ctrl+F "22:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)" to find the relevant comment). 2: probably, based on those sources (though it's less clear-cut). -sche (talk) 21:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support 1, 3, 4, neutral on 2 unless more sources appear, I'm not sure those we have support "widely". (t · c) buidhe 22:39, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- 1, 3 and 4 are unambiguously true, 2 is also true but subjective. Guy (help!) 23:18, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- 1, 3 and 4 are unambiguously true. 2 is also true but may (or may not) need attribution. I note with amusement the fact that some editors are questioning the reliability of sources that say The Daily Mail is widely viewed as being unreliable (which is a good thing; we should always question the reliability of all sources) while ignoring the elephant in the room: you can search all day and find source after source that talks about how unreliable The Daily Mail is while finding exactly zero sources that say that it is reliable. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:43, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- The Daily News? You mean Daily Mail? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:02, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- Update: I asked that because Guy Macon repeatedly mentioned The Daily News. Instead of replying, Guy Macon removed my question, and I reverted because WP:TALKO. Then Guy Macon changed what he had written despite WP:TALK#REPLIED. But I forgive, just as I forgive Daily Mail if it makes corrections silently. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:49, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- The Daily News? You mean Daily Mail? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:02, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment, per "Unsupported attributions", we need a source that makes that conclusion before including it. It takes original research to determine how authoritative and representative the claims of inaccuracy are. Alternatively we could say the paper's reporting is inaccurate if we could find a reliable source (i.e., not an opinion piece) that says that. While this may seem onerous, if we don't find a statement in reliable sources it lacks significance for inclusion. TFD (talk) 02:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- I'm good with all four. Count me out of the pedantic nonsense that says we need a source that uses the word "widely" before we can write "widely" in our own text. If there are a good many sources of sufficient quality criticising this newspaper's stories for being unreliable and inaccurate, then it has been "widely" criticised along those lines. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- Nomoskedasticity, policy does not say that sources must have the same wording, just that they convey the same meaning, in this case that the Daily Mail is considered unreliable by informed observers. We are opening ourselves up to right-wing editors finding a bunch of columns by conservatives and making making claims that fascism is left-wing or whatever the latest theory in the echo chamber is. Besides, it would be ironic to ignore Wikipedia policy of reliable sources in order to say that another publication is unreliable. TFD (talk) 19:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- I'd say the real risk is the Mail simply being able to point out that the Wikipedia community are hypocrites, that they are people who expect others to do what they can't or won't, and for reasons other than the obvious drawbacks of this being an entirely decentralised volunteer effort with no legal or even moral responsibility to do the right thing. And certainly with no regulator to answer to when they don't. It being the case that all but a few Wikipedia policies are entirely optional, easily overridden by the community, if it wishes, even the requirement to cite statements to reliable sources, and not deviate from what they say just because they want to. And of course, not having to work very hard to persuade people why The Guardian might not consider that aspect of Wikipedia to be worth reporting. BrianFNewman (talk) 20:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- See #Sourcing_concerns above. Guest2625 started a thread for discussing each source cited for the sentence. So far, one source (forbes.com) has been removed, one source (themediafund.org) is the current focus, others merit discussion. I hope that this RfC will not cause derailment of the attempt to look at the sources individually. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:02, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- This is a proper RFC that's getting proper answers already, so it's fine - David Gerard (talk) 14:19, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- All four are fine with me. Multiple RSes = "widely" for purposes of 2, IMO - David Gerard (talk) 14:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- For 1 and 3, this article should only say what sources support, which is a cornerstone of Wikipedia. It matters what is bein said, and who is saying it, hence the importance of the process above, evaluating concerns. Best practice is to quote the sources, where there is disagreement on this core matter. And if they are mere examples, it has to be considered whether these are sufficiently important to stand as examples of the Mail being "noted" or "criticised", given the Mail publishes hundreds of articles a day, and has many many enemies, lots of whom don't seem to appreciate the damage that being a hypocrite does to their cause (why would anyone believe someone who claims the Mail lies, if they have to resort to lying themselves to make their point?). Best practice here would be to completely avoid using anyone who could be construed as having a conflict of interest, such as a competitor, or at the very least, note who they are (most British people, for example, would be unconvinced if the only criticism of The Mail, comes from The Guardian - see the New Yorker piece for the reason). For 2 and 4, if the sources don't say "widely", then like it or not, you can't say it either. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Plenty of blogs out there, for those who want to state their own opinion of what the sources represent. BrianFNewman (talk) 19:26, 27 July 2020 (UTC) — BrianFNewman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.