What's your point?
Even the first example in that section, the one you might assume is the most damning and/or the most assessed by Wikipedia editors for relevance, is a fucking joke.
In 2011, the Daily Mail published an article titled "Just ONE cannabis joint 'can cause psychiatric episodes similar to schizophrenia' as well as damaging memory".[213] Dr. Matt Jones, the lead author of the study that is cited in the article was quoted by Cannabis Law Reform as saying: "This study does NOT say that one spliff will bring on schizophrenia".[214]
I mean, maybe I'm stoned, but I don't see how one statement relates to the other. But a Wikipedia editor thinks it does.
A serious encyclopedia writer probably wouldn't have even used such a biased source.
In its latest, shameful descent into lies, scaremongering and deceit about science and cannabis, The Daily Mail blurts: “One cannabis joint ‘can bring on schizophrenia’ as well as damaging memory”
This will be the subject of a Press Complaints Commission complaint. However, I do not expect any satisfaction or proper evaluation of a complaint by the PCC as it has proved itself again and again to be corrupt, dishonest and not in the least concerned with truth, accuracy or enforcing the Editors’ Code.
However, I have now spoken directly to Dr Matt Jones, lead author of the study in question and MRC Senior Non-clinical Fellow at the University of Bristol. He told me that he was “disappointed but not surprised” at the Daily Mail’s coverage of his work. He gave me permission to quote him in saying that “This study does NOT say that one spliff will bring on schizophrenia”.
The Daily Mail, its journalists and its toady apologists on the PCC are liars, cheats and charlatans with not one ounce of integrity, nor any interest in truth or honesty.
Something tells me we shouldn't really be trusting this source has fairly or even accurately conveyed the substance of their interview with the good doctor.
But hey, what would that matter to Wikishits? Bias is good, as long as it aligns with their own bias.
I am LOVING that you allowed all this to be highlighted, lifting the lid on what Wikipedia is, and you didn't harm the Mail one teeny tiny bit in doing so.
The wording cannot be corrected or improved, because thanks to Wikipediocracy's help, thanks to heroes like you, anyone who registers to make such edits, gets blocked.
I mean, how do you not see stuff like that and feel deep shame?
This is you. This is your impact on the world. The way Wikipedia presents its version of the truth, is because of people like you.
Out here in the real world, we're still allowed to read the article (as opposed to the headline) and understand what incredible value the Mail is.
Cannabis abuse has previously been linked with increased rates of schizophrenia but this is the strongest evidence yet that the drug mimics its effects.
The scientists studied rats who had been given the active ingredient of cannabis - in a similar dose to a person smoking a joint.
Using electrodes embedded into their brains – which cannot be done in humans – they found those who had the drug were ‘significantly impaired’ in carrying out tasks for up to two hours afterwards.
If this dose of cannabis has the same effect on humans, just one joint could significantly change their behaviour.
Dr Matt Jones, the lead author of the study said: ‘Cannabis is making normal people behave more like schizophrenia patients when they take it and that’s something they should bear in mind.
‘Previous studies have shown a link but we didn’t have this level of detail.
Seems like the headline writer did his job.
We can safely assume that if the good doctor had disagreed with any of the above, he would have said something.
Seems like that twat from Cannabis Law Reform failed in his mission to prove the Mail had written an inaccurate piece, but fuck it, they'd got all mad and made a phone call, so they put something out there anyway, in the sure fire knowledge Wikishits would eat it up.
Nom nom nom.
That is, if we are even sure that whoever put that in Wikipedia, wasn't that twat himself.
In a past life, before they sold out, Wikipediocracy cared about telling people they really shouldn't be surprised if that is what happened here.
Now, thanks to scumlords like you, they somehow got the idea Wikipedia checks its sources for issues like accuracy and bias.
Which they do.
It goes something like this....
1. We hate the Mail
2. This twat from Cannabis Law Reform hates the Mail
3. Reliable source!
Just another surprising window into the fraud that was the Wikipedia Daily Mail ban.
1. They're publishing irrelevant criticism of a Mail headline.
2. They're not acknowledging the headline is probably fair, once you read the article.
3. They're not acknowledging the criticism comes from a biased source who isn't even a journalist.
3. They're not acknowledging headlines are not used as sources on Wikipedia, period.
4. They're not acknowledging that no newspaper printing anything about this specific study, even if it was the holy Guardian itself, would be usable on Wikipedia, because of their medical specific rules.
5. They specifically banned Wikipedia as a source because it allegedly prints false headlines and false medical stories.
Obvious motive for this grand deception, that you played a massive part in, is obvious (reporting about the potential harms of cannabis is seen as a right wing issue, and Wikipedia wants to appeal to the left wing).
There are top quality journalistic studies out there showing the Mail's coverage of science is really quite good, and much of it is exactly what they want, quality reporting of studies of studies. And naturally, because they're a commercial success and the likes of The Guardian are pan handling bias factories, just like Wikipedia, they simply do way more of it than the Guardian could even dream of.
Doesn't matter to the wikishits, apparently.
This is you.
You clealry love the fact that becuase of you, Wikipedia is a threat to children and cannabis users.
I think everyone's getting a good idea of who you are, deep down.
And we are seeing what Wikipediocracy likes to see in a Mod.
For shame.
