Advanced search

Daily Mail Banned as "Reliable Source" By Wikipedia.

(12 Posts)
TiggyD Thu 09-Feb-17 18:55:20

Unreliable? Make stuff up to fit their agenda? Who'd a thought it!


pluck Thu 09-Feb-17 19:12:00


parklives Thu 09-Feb-17 23:27:22


NotSoEagerBeaver Thu 09-Feb-17 23:29:02

That's not news... But nice to see it official, like grin

PigletJohn Fri 10-Feb-17 11:42:24

I wonder if the Fail's scavengers will hoover up this one to put on their website.

TiggyD Fri 10-Feb-17 18:41:02

It was mentioned in The Times. A news segment, and a slightly disapproving comment by a columnist, but I got the impression they were sniggering when they wrote it.

Crumbs1 Fri 10-Feb-17 18:48:32

Does anyone believe the stories and interpretation based on hatred and nimbyism are 'news'.

prh47bridge Sat 11-Feb-17 10:03:00

I don't like the Daily Mail but this decision by Wikipedia editors is ridiculous given the other sources they accept as reliable. It should not be anywhere near the head of the queue for banning.

GallicosCats Sat 11-Feb-17 18:38:16

The words 'pot' and 'kettle' spring to mind.

GallicosCats Sat 11-Feb-17 18:40:42

As well as 'stating the bleedin' obvious' which is Wikipedia's special skill anyway

MilkTwoSugarsThanks Sat 11-Feb-17 18:49:51

Yeah, I thought "pot", "kettle" and "black" too!

If there's one thing I've always told DS when researching homework it's "Don't automatically trust Wikipedia!"

ErrolTheDragon Sat 11-Feb-17 18:59:41

I think wiki has been tightened up, but I've never trusted it since reading early entries about my village. It claimed it had a herd of bison, among other things.

Still - seems reasonable re the mail!

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: