Daily Mail/ Wikipedia

wellquickwoody · Feb 12, 2017

The Large One said:
Maybe decent society doesn't believe in freedom of speech when it comes without the concept of responsibility.

To be able to say something for its own sake has little value.

Your post is a case in point.

The value is in the right of the speaker, do you seek to deny the right to voice an opinion?

Just seems a little like a left wing crusade, newsagents (and now LFC) banning The Sun, others now turning their attention to the Daily Mail, just seems that the 'left' do not actually believe in free speech. Seems like Momentum want a Kremlin like world.

JC Footy Genius · Feb 12, 2017

Harry Wilson's tackle said:
No time for the 'Mirror'. Another shite sheet. Remenber the 'Achtung' headline before an Englanmd Germany game? Anyway, no tabloid counts as a serous source of anything. The Mail likes to think of itself as above the tabloids. Moreover, just because the Mirror was also stinky doesn't make the Mail's PRESENT DAY DELUGE OF MINDLESS DIARRHOEA acceptable. So please don't try to defend it . . . you may as well paint 'kick me' on your arse and bend over.

Admirably consistant in your views then. No intention of defending it although I am against banning/muzzling newspapers even if I vehemently disagree with their stance on some issues (unless they incite violence/break the law).

Chicken Run · Feb 13, 2017

DavidinSouthampton said:
The Daily Mail, according to Press Complaints Commission figures I have seen has:
1. By far the highest number of complaints against it of any national newspaper
2. By far the highest proportion of complaints against it upheld.

Whereas I think plenty of people would acknowledge that Wikipedia is actually pretty good - depending on what you are looking for.

Most papers would love the number of complaints the Mail get!

BadFish · Feb 13, 2017

The problem here is when opinion is presented as fact it cannot be relied upon.

Albumen · Feb 13, 2017

Garry Nelson's Left Foot said:
On the plus side I can complete the Daily Mail crossword.

There's too many of them (10)
'I' something 'm' something . . . . . .

Albumen · Feb 13, 2017

wellquickwoody said:
The value is in the right of the speaker, do you seek to deny the right to voice an opinion?

Just seems a little like a left wing crusade, newsagents (and now LFC) banning The Sun, others now turning their attention to the Daily Mail, just seems that the 'left' do not actually believe in free speech. Seems like Momentum want a Kremlin like world.

LFC banning the sun is hardly considered 'left wing'.

Notters · Feb 13, 2017

wellquickwoody said:
The value is in the right of the speaker, do you seek to deny the right to voice an opinion?

Just seems a little like a left wing crusade, newsagents (and now LFC) banning The Sun, others now turning their attention to the Daily Mail, just seems that the 'left' do not actually believe in free speech. Seems like Momentum want a Kremlin like world.

The difference is surely between opinions and lies? The Sun has been proven to have spouted lies about innocent people who died tragically, seems reasonable to condemn this, no?

Albumen · Feb 13, 2017

Notters said:
The difference is surely between opinions and lies? The Sun has been proven to have spouted lies about innocent people who died tragically, seems reasonable to condemn this, no?

Not if you're right wing, it's free speech that they seem to lap up.

BBassic · Feb 13, 2017

wellquickwoody said:
Just seems a little like a left wing crusade, newsagents (and now LFC) banning The Sun, others now turning their attention to the Daily Mail, just seems that the 'left' do not actually believe in free speech. Seems like Momentum want a Kremlin like world.

Everyone has a right to free speech. In order for us to remain democratic and open that has to be the case. Wikipedia electing to not allow the DM as a source for its articles is absolutely not an attack on free speech, rather, it is a move made to ensure the information presented on their website is as accurate and unbiased as possible.

It's an encyclopedia, not a mouthpiece.

beorhthelm · Feb 13, 2017

actually this is bit of a problem for Wikipedia, because Daily Mail are far from the only offenders. Wikipedia itself has no fact checking at all, relying on the volunteers to reference and cross-check the sources. there are numerous fake stories on there (theres some running for years). by taking this position it is making an editorial stance, losing its supposed neutrality. as founder Jimmy Wales is on the board for the Guardian, this looks a bit more political than many would like to pretend.

AlastairWatts · Feb 13, 2017

Harry Wilson's tackle said:
Some grudges are personal. Some are inherited. If the Mail editor apologised for his predecessor being Hitler's gimp, and the decades of anti-human scaremongering coupled with rose-tinted spectacular accomodation of greed, snobbery, racism, ageism, sexist and general cuntfulness, I might be prepared to use a bit of it to line my parrott's cage.

That's just plain daft. By the time everyone has finished apologising for events that happened over 80 years ago the world will run out of newsprint. The Daily Mail must have gone through a bunch of editors since then and almost certainly the present editor would not only have not been born but would quote possibly know little of those events and days - and it was a very different world in any case.

Albumen · Feb 13, 2017

beorhthelm said:
actually this is bit of a problem for Wikipedia, because Daily Mail are far from the only offenders. Wikipedia itself has no fact checking at all, relying on the volunteers to reference and cross-check the sources. there are numerous fake stories on there (theres some running for years). by taking this position it is making an editorial stance, losing its supposed neutrality. as founder Jimmy Wales is on the board for the Guardian, this looks a bit more political than many would like to pretend.

It's not a problem at all, they're saying they don't trust the Daily Mail as a source due to it's lack of facts. If the fake stories you suggest are all from the same source I presume they'll be looked at too. There's no point in crow-barring wiki links to the Guardian, it's just facts.

DavidinSouthampton · Feb 13, 2017

Article in the Guardian today having a go at the Mail because it is having a go at Gary Lineker over tax issues. Lineker is a decent bloke who happens to have made some comments recently on various issues where the Mail disagrees with what he has said. They are now having a (probably unjustified) pop at him about tax avoidance schemes. It points out how easy and lazy it is to make this sort of accusation, but that some of the mud will stick, however unjustified the accusation might be.

If Lineker chooses to ignore it/rise above it, will some people assume there is no smoke without fire. Or should he resort to the libel laws.

Whichever, the article also goes back to the Supreme Court Judges stuff, with the revelation that one of them was gay, and that others had European Connections. Why on earth does that matter? Does it render them incapable of making an objective judgement on the law, at which they are expert.

The Mail is just nasty, vindictive and has precious little regard for the truth.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/13/daily-mail-gary-lineker

Live by the sea · Feb 13, 2017

The Guardian is just as bad as the daily mail just in a different way. Constantly looking for excuses to explain terrorism rather than just accepting it is evil people doing evil things.

beorhthelm · Feb 13, 2017

Albumen said:
It's not a problem at all, they're saying they don't trust the Daily Mail as a source due to it's lack of facts.

i've no issue with them barring the Mail itself, its the precedent it sets for Wikipedia. are they going to properly vet other sources, and generally take more responsibility for quality and fact verification?

BBassic · Feb 13, 2017

Live by the sea said:
The Guardian is just as bad as the daily mail just in a different way. Constantly looking for excuses to explain terrorism rather than just accepting it is evil people doing evil things.

We view them as evil, they view us as evil. It's subjective. There is also usually a motive.

You bombed us.
You bombed us first.

That's it and it stretches all the way back to the first holy crusades, probably before then as well.

ROKERITE · Feb 13, 2017

DavidinSouthampton said:
Article in the Guardian today having a go at the Mail because it is having a go at Gary Lineker over tax issues. Lineker is a decent bloke who happens to have made some comments recently on various issues where the Mail disagrees with what he has said. They are now having a (probably unjustified) pop at him about tax avoidance schemes. It points out how easy and lazy it is to make this sort of accusation, but that some of the mud will stick, however unjustified the accusation might be.

If Lineker chooses to ignore it/rise above it, will some people assume there is no smoke without fire. Or should he resort to the libel laws.

Whichever, the article also goes back to the Supreme Court Judges stuff, with the revelation that one of them was gay, and that others had European Connections. Why on earth does that matter? Does it render them incapable of making an objective judgement on the law, at which they are expert.

The Mail is just nasty, vindictive and has precious little regard for the truth.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/13/daily-mail-gary-lineker

Can't you see the prejudice in what you've written there? Are you so lacking in self awareness?

Soulman · Feb 13, 2017

DavidinSouthampton said:
Article in the Guardian today having a go at the Mail because it is having a go at Gary Lineker over tax issues. Lineker is a decent bloke who happens to have made some comments recently on various issues where the Mail disagrees with what he has said. They are now having a (probably unjustified) pop at him about tax avoidance schemes. It points out how easy and lazy it is to make this sort of accusation, but that some of the mud will stick, however unjustified the accusation might be.

If Lineker chooses to ignore it/rise above it, will some people assume there is no smoke without fire. Or should he resort to the libel laws.

Whichever, the article also goes back to the Supreme Court Judges stuff, with the revelation that one of them was gay, and that others had European Connections. Why on earth does that matter? Does it render them incapable of making an objective judgement on the law, at which they are expert.

The Mail is just nasty, vindictive and has precious little regard for the truth.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/13/daily-mail-gary-lineker

Not really challenging your opinion on the Mail or the Guardian, more your "Lineker is a decent bloke ".
This is the bloke that left his wife and children for a younger model when his wife and kids were going through a bad time. This is the bloke who was on that quiz show and used to have snidey digs at others, namely Vinnie Jones and he crapped himself and went into slippery creep mode when Jones appeared on the show. This is also the bloke that thought it was funny when Ian Wright got pumped from MOTD, some nasty snide remarks on social media. Let's not forget that Wright was third in line to have his say at HT and FT and often his views had already been stated by the previous pundits.
I think Lineker is a nasty piece.

looney · Feb 13, 2017

Harry Wilson's tackle said:
Grow up. Learn to write in English (I assume it is your native tongue). Read what other people write before attacking things they haven't said. Oh, and SOD OFF, you rediculous over-extended cockwomble. You write nothing that makes any sense. Next you'll be complaining that we were illagally allowed entry into the premier league last season (we are not in the premier league, just in case you weren't aware). Have a nice warm bath. Stop engaging with things about which you know nothing, Don't use the interweb to answer your questions about life, the universe and anything. Acne eventually clears up. ************ isn't wrong. Its OK, it really is. Everything will eventually make sense.

Oh it does my cucked little friend. When you calm down from your crazed rage(Did you see what I did there?) You may ask your self a couple of questions? Has wikipedia become staffed with leftists? Why not include the whole of fleet street and CNN?

Maybe it doesn't fit with your whiny narrative, when stripped away reveals this leftist wankfest nothing more than dipping a toe into authoritarianism.

So keep on crying, I bath in your tears.

looney · Feb 13, 2017

BBassic said:
The election and subsequent presidency has coined a bunch of awful phrases but I think "snowflake" has to be the one which enrages me the most. Just over "fake news".

The media invented fake news trope, I dont think they thought it throiugh properly. Oh you will find there is a whole herd of new phrases on the way. Its a bit late now to complain about derogatory labels as the left have been chewing that bone for decades, phobias, isms etc. Chickens coming home to roost and stuff.

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Daily Mail/ Wikipedia

Many More Voting Years

Bringer of TRUTH

Member Since Jul 2003

Huge Member

Don't wait for me!

Don't wait for me!

Well-known member

Don't wait for me!

I changed this.

A. Virgo, Football Genius

Active member

Don't wait for me!

Well-known member

Well-known member

A. Virgo, Football Genius

I changed this.

Active member

New member

Banned

Banned

Share this page