The call has gone out for closers. Guy Macon did the deed, of course. He implied the closer will get abuse whichever way they close it, although I'm sure he doesn't recognise he has frequently insulted people on Wikipedia for not agreeing with him over the issue at hand.
If you see anyone in future calling this ban a community intiative/effort, remind them just how much of the actual process has been conducted by just one person. Someone with an extremely obvious position in the matter.
Unbelievably, one of the people who closed the original RfC, Primefac, has volunteered to be one of the closers this time. These people really have no clue, do they? They have absolutely no idea how utterly inappropriate this would be, letting someone summarise a debate whose genesis is in part because his first closure was alleged to be in error (and bless their hearts, many of the opposers are still desperately trying to make people forget, through lies of ommission, that 'original closure was flawed' is one of the issues under discussion).
Is this negligence, or something more deliberate? It hardly matters. It is sufficient to see it happening, and more importantly seeing nobody standing on a chair and screaming FOUL, to prove to any doubters, that the Wikipedians have absolutely no business, none at all, sitting in judgement over the ethics and practices of a regulated national newspaper.
The Daily Mail ban
Re: The Daily Mail ban
Still think this isn't a ban? Still think this ban isn't motivated by something other than evidence?
Well......
This only condition that needs to be met for Guy Macon to know a piece from the Mail isn't usable by Wikipedia, is to be told it was published in the Mail.
He probably doesn't even realise it, but he has already said things before which contradict this statement (his Katie Hopkins didn't object exception, and his attributed but sufficiently reworded by another source exception, and countless others too).
You could have some real fun with this idiot's complete lack of awareness of just how much of a retard he really is. Performing behavioural experiments on human subjects without their knowledge is of course entirely unethical, and I'm sure the WMF would take a dim view of using their servers as the laboratory. But it would be so much fun.
For more immediate laughs, go back and read the above quote, and remind yourself just how many references to the Mail still exist on Wikipedia.
Well......
I mean, feel free to argue he is telling the truth, as long as you can reassure me Guy Macon has read every article ever published by the Daily Mail.The Daily Mail would have to publish something that is worth using as a reference for anyone to argue that an exception should be made, and they have not done that. They haven't even come close. ......--Guy Macon (talk) 10:22, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
This only condition that needs to be met for Guy Macon to know a piece from the Mail isn't usable by Wikipedia, is to be told it was published in the Mail.
He probably doesn't even realise it, but he has already said things before which contradict this statement (his Katie Hopkins didn't object exception, and his attributed but sufficiently reworded by another source exception, and countless others too).
You could have some real fun with this idiot's complete lack of awareness of just how much of a retard he really is. Performing behavioural experiments on human subjects without their knowledge is of course entirely unethical, and I'm sure the WMF would take a dim view of using their servers as the laboratory. But it would be so much fun.
For more immediate laughs, go back and read the above quote, and remind yourself just how many references to the Mail still exist on Wikipedia.
Re: The Daily Mail ban
Read this, then look up.
Watch the closers ignore that too.
Lying scum, the lot of them.
Which cases have ever succeeded? There have been none, for the reasons given above by the Chief Propagandist in his whole farce, as countless people in this very debate have already said, but which somehow, this piece of shit failed to spot. Deliberately, obviously.many of the "Yes" !voters seem to be under the impression that the Daily Mail sanction is an absolute ban, but the second point in the closure explicitly allows its use on a case by case, common sense basis for when an editorial consensus finds it would be a reliable source. Would support a one-year moratorium on reopening this. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:20, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Watch the closers ignore that too.
Lying scum, the lot of them.
Re: The Daily Mail ban
Ah, the Liar In Chief speaks....
Our Ambassador SashiRolls will convey your reply to us in a diplomatic bag forthwith.
To the Analysis Bus!A few points. Whether or not a newspaper has engaged in 'warmongering' strikes me as completely irrelevant to their validity as a source. We don't vet sources to make sure that they come to political conclusions that we agree with! The only thing that matters is truth - reliability. A paper that gets it wrong often enough (all papers make errors of course) is the issue. Low quality is different from political outlook.
I don't know if, with the change of the Editor in Chief, the Mail has significantly improved in quality.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, you rather ignored their main point though didn't you? But hey, if Jimmy Wales doesn't think a newspaper which stands accused of spreading "war mongering propaganda" as a "mouthpiece" for a government has questions to answer over its validity as a source for Wikipedia, can you explicitly say that, so we can quote you on it?Whether or not a newspaper has engaged in 'warmongering' strikes me as completely irrelevant to their validity as a source.
Dude, check your records. Quite a few of your wikishits were and still are quite confused on this point, they often refer to issues of bias, and to date we have not heard of a single Wikipedia Administrator either condemn these views as inadmissible, or confirm that they were indeed excluded from the deliberations. The records of said deliberations have been kept secret, I doubt they would even be revealed to you Dear Jimmy, especially if you told them why you wanted to see them.We don't vet sources to make sure that they come to political conclusions that we agree with!
Eh? Whose version of the truth are you referring to here? Because we have it on good authority, from reliable sources, that the Mail is a market leading newspaper which has been recognised several times by its peers for the quality of its product and whose record before the regulator is unremarkable, indeed downright impressive when you consider it is being smeared by the "truth bound" Wikipedians as being as bad if not worse than the Mirror and News of the World, papers whose unreliability in delivering the truth has caused many a national scandal. Many Wikipedians seem to think it is the British equivalent of the National Enquirer. As someone who would know, just when are you going to call that out as the lie it is? Did you even know this is what they think, what they are saying on your servers?The only thing that matters is truth - reliability.
Is it? If so, then why was no evidence presented which would have convinced anyone who had not already made up their mind, that the Mail stands out in the frequency of its errors at all, never mind so far out that it warrants being so publicly singled out for a ban by your website's volunteers? Tell us, by what method does Wikipedia measure 'often' in this context? Because it seems obvious from our own extensive research that it is nothing more than the study of anecdotal evidence and the taking on good faith the words of disgruntled employees and celebrities with a clear motive of revenge. What is your single best source for this oft-repeated claim by the Wikipedians, that the Mail is in the business of routinely making shit up and stealing other people's work? You can check your own article if you like, but I'll save you the time, you have none. No reliable source is prepared to make such a defamatory claim. There is a reason why Guy Macon is simply reusing the same examples over and over again. When can we expect a Wikipedia Administrator will regulate his comments for basic compliance with what your website laughably calls your protection against doing harm to identifiable individuals?A paper that gets it wrong often enough (all papers make errors of course) is the issue.
But you do know that this is just one of several reasons given for why the ban is unsound? If you are commenting on this issue without having even read the initial proposal, much less what your editors have been saying in response to it, that is your prerogative, but please confirm this is the case if so, for the record.I don't know if, with the change of the Editor in Chief, the Mail has significantly improved in quality
Our Ambassador SashiRolls will convey your reply to us in a diplomatic bag forthwith.
Re: The Daily Mail ban
This is clearly a controversial policy given the numbers of people commenting and the relatively unprecedented use of panels to close it and presumably reaffirm it. You are whining here precisely because you wish it didn't look controversial, but it is. You hate the fact a handful of (or maybe, just the two Guys?) Wikipedians are prepared to treat this as A Matter Of Great Importance. Because their statements about it reveal they have never had any intention of treating this as an issue that is possible to divine consensus in any other way than a ban.Although exerting caution when closing it makes some sense, it makes me a bit nervous to be so cautious here. This RFC is by any reasonable reading actually more one-sided than the one that led to the Mail originally getting depreciated as a source. Treating it with extreme caution risks sending the message that the outcome is in doubt by making it look closer than it is. The first one needed a cautious close because it was taking an unprecedented step; but treating every single appeal to it with the same caution risks encouraging people to constantly challenge it and means we'll be wasting far more time and energy than necessary on challenges to a policy that, on the whole, does not actually seem to be very controversial (even if many of the people opposed are very vehemently opposed, this is an extremely clear RFC result by any reasonable standard.) Obviously consensus can change and all that, but in the total absence of any indication that it's changed (and given that it's reasonably clear the people who respect the Mail as a source have no intention of backing down in the long term), treating every single rehash of the debate as a five-alarm fire seems unnecessary. --Aquillion (talk) 04:11, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
I would be interested to know what this "reasonable measure" actually is. There have been no stronger arguments in favour of the ban this time around, and even less attempts to rebuff the arguments made against it, so the only way he could be seeing an even clearer outcome, is if he is ignoring what was said, and the behaviour of supporters of the ban, and is basically just head counting.
Wikipedia needs a panel of closers here, because it is more that one person is capable of, to try and find the right form of words which buries all the unresolved issues and makes it appear like it was an emphatic victory for the people who want it banned, without mentioning or alluding to the fact they basically just counted heads.
What these people should be trying to explaIn, is why all this fuss when the policy seems to be a rather ineffective one, since nobody is actually applying it to existing uses of the Mail with any great urgency. Almost as if it was all just a PR exercise, the Wikipedians wanting to tell the world what their political views are.
No point telling the world that The Sun is unreliable, thanks to a number of massive public controversies and a general reputation of being toilet paper, nobody really believes what they read in the Sun. Hence why that parallel discussion is not nearly as well attended, or indeed attended to for closing in the same way as this one.
The purpose here is and always has been, to spread the total lie that the Mail is terribly, worse than even the Sun. That is such a massive lie, frankly it does take a "Five Alarm Fire" type effort to ram it through. You need twenty to forty people turning up to pretend like they are unconvinced by arguments they clearly didn't even read, to get this over the line. You need to make the discussion so big, so disorganised, so tediously repetitive thanks to one incredibly persistent actor, that nobody even spots the many times the supporters told a lie, ignored an issue, and generally bullshitted their way through.
Re: The Daily Mail ban
Whoops.....
What part of this comment has anything to do with the reliability of the Mail?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... -shop.html
When you read the story, you are not surprised to learn that what this Wikipedia Administrator claims is the "entire story", is a lie. There are plenty of quotes and general information that explain why the Mail is still a market leading mass circulation newspaper, the emphasis being on news.
This Wikipediot seems to object solely to the fact the Mail used a prominent opposition MP's tweet as a jumping off point for a news story about something that all reputable outlets picked up on that week. It has no relevance to reliability at all. It simply shows he hates that the Mail is seen as a newspaper full stop (the prick is British).
This lie was told on Jimmy Wales's page no less. Nothing was done. No action of any kind was taken to ensure the lie was retracted, not even to remind this Administrator of their obligation to exercise good judgement and not abuse Wikipedia servers to malign the professional reputations of journalists. Jimmy Wales literally made a comment directly below that lie, and he SAID NOTHING.
The idea truth has played any part in the decision to ban (and in due time, reaffirm) the Mail, the idea they would ever conduct this debate on the basis that who tells the truth wins the day, is LAUGHABLE.
As if you couldn't have guessed, the lying Wikipedia Admins supports the ban, and indeed was very exercised by the fact the Mail had 50 IPSO "rulings against it" in 2017, "by far the worst of any national UK newspaper". Unsurprisingly, even though it was highlighted in the original ban discussion, he ignored the fact not every newspaper in Britain is regulated by IPSO.
Many other problems were identified with this statistic, and many more would have been, had he shown any willingness to engage. Instead, he chose to simply malign the person questioning him, concluding "I don't think it's worth engaging with you any further". Quite. Hardly worth pointing out that behaviour is theoretically deemed unacceptable in a Wikipedia Administrator.
And he is an example of a supporter actually bothering to respond to their view being challenged, at least until he realised he was in a hole. Most have not, choosing to completely avoid the inevitability of finding themselves in a hole of their own making.
But hey, who cares? Nobody.
By any reasonable measure.
What part of this comment has anything to do with the reliability of the Mail?
In reference to.....What, a "great headline" pretty much copied from Tom Watson's tweets which are in fact the entire "story" that it's printed? Yes, I have to say that's some serious talent at work. Black Kite (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... -shop.html
When you read the story, you are not surprised to learn that what this Wikipedia Administrator claims is the "entire story", is a lie. There are plenty of quotes and general information that explain why the Mail is still a market leading mass circulation newspaper, the emphasis being on news.
This Wikipediot seems to object solely to the fact the Mail used a prominent opposition MP's tweet as a jumping off point for a news story about something that all reputable outlets picked up on that week. It has no relevance to reliability at all. It simply shows he hates that the Mail is seen as a newspaper full stop (the prick is British).
This lie was told on Jimmy Wales's page no less. Nothing was done. No action of any kind was taken to ensure the lie was retracted, not even to remind this Administrator of their obligation to exercise good judgement and not abuse Wikipedia servers to malign the professional reputations of journalists. Jimmy Wales literally made a comment directly below that lie, and he SAID NOTHING.
The idea truth has played any part in the decision to ban (and in due time, reaffirm) the Mail, the idea they would ever conduct this debate on the basis that who tells the truth wins the day, is LAUGHABLE.
As if you couldn't have guessed, the lying Wikipedia Admins supports the ban, and indeed was very exercised by the fact the Mail had 50 IPSO "rulings against it" in 2017, "by far the worst of any national UK newspaper". Unsurprisingly, even though it was highlighted in the original ban discussion, he ignored the fact not every newspaper in Britain is regulated by IPSO.
Many other problems were identified with this statistic, and many more would have been, had he shown any willingness to engage. Instead, he chose to simply malign the person questioning him, concluding "I don't think it's worth engaging with you any further". Quite. Hardly worth pointing out that behaviour is theoretically deemed unacceptable in a Wikipedia Administrator.
And he is an example of a supporter actually bothering to respond to their view being challenged, at least until he realised he was in a hole. Most have not, choosing to completely avoid the inevitability of finding themselves in a hole of their own making.
But hey, who cares? Nobody.
By any reasonable measure.
Re: The Daily Mail ban
Unsurprisingly, the fix is in.......
They were of course hugely influenced by the number of votes on each side, giving no indication of whether they did anything more than count them. So much for 'not a vote'.
They claim they also took into account strength of argument, but their summation of the main themes is of course lacking in many respects, leaving many issues with the weakness of the arguments made completely unaddressed. As I predicted.
They claim the evidence presented is the same, neatly sidestepping all the complaints about the nature of it, which was as important if not more so than the issue of there being a new editor. We will apparently never get a formal statement as to why all it ever seems to take to convince Wikipedians that a national newspaper is guilty of the most serious examples of misconduct, as a matter of routine, allegedly because it is their entire business mode, is anecdotal evidence drawn from biased and otherwise unreliable sources.
The only evidence not meeting that bill, is IPSO data, and the closers of course have made no mention at all of the debate surrounding its interpretation. There is not even a hint that they appreciate this would be an important aspect of the debate that needs summation. Not least since deliberate misrepresentation of IPSO data by the initiator, who then later admitted he had "used Daily Mail tactics" to achieve what he wanted, was a key factor in the original ban debate. That person is now banned from Wikipedia, for entirely unrelated but troubling patterns of showing complete disrespect for basic Wikipedia policy, one with legal implications.
There is repetition of the obviously false claim that there are some instances where use of the Mail as a source for facts that cannot be sourced elsewhere, would be tolerated. It is not, this has been proven both in theory and in fact. Why lie about something so obviously untrue? Because this is all about PR. They hate it when people call this a ban, so they put that lie in there yet again, just so it can be claimed it is not a ban.
There is a repetition of the utter absurdity it is that there really is nothing wrong with how the Wikipedians seem to be deliberately singling out the Mail, choosing not to take the same action for other sources that are being used right now, but are deemed to be just as unreliable, if not more so. The ban debate on The Sun is still sitting there, unclosed, despite the fact it predates this debate. Why?
We know why they are singling out the Mail, several of the Wikipedians said it outright. They are pissed that the rest of the world still sees the Mail as a serious newspaper, not a tabloid rag, and they want to change that perception. It ironically doesn't seem to matter that their own Wikipedia article on it does not support their claims (because they cannot reliably source it, they just hope readers will be confused by their mention of "tabloid" in the format context), it only lists criticism as anecdotes, and none rise to the level of national scandal seen in other titles. They hope to be a driver of the change they want to see, presumably through a variant of the mechanism of citogenisis, using the views of Wikipedians to seed what ultimately becomes true by being sourced in a Wikipedia article.
There is no mention of any of those inconvenient truths in this closure, the seeds of this hatred. They only mention the apparently unpersuasive whinges of the whingers. They are confident the opinions of people like Guy Chapman and Guy Macon, which give exact and quotable reasons why there is singular focus on the Mail, will remain unseen, buried in the mass of repetitious and fact averse text they call a debate, which they now claim to have summarised. It would not do to allow the press to quote those parts. All about the PR. Neutrality? Pah.
This is an indefensible closure. Nothing will be done about it. There will be no consequences for Wikipedia making a statement like this....
It is fitting that Wikipedia, in the context of a debate about accuracy, still seemingly can't settle this issue with any more precision than "widespread". Almost as if they really don't care about the consequences of their actions on the reputations of professional people. They were given a chance to rectify that mistake, a chance to prove this ban was absolutely grounded in solid evidence that demonstrated an actual pattern of significant impact, that this was all done for unassailably pure motives and featured sound reasoning and impeccable ettiquette throughout, ideally by people who have the first clue about the relevant issues, namely how newspapers work. They rejected the chance, and just doubled down on the mistake. That is now unafraid they are of any kind of repurcussions for their collective ignorance and malfeasance.
I said it before. Holding them to account using the courts, is the only way anything will change. They are already morally bankrupt, so presenting them with the possibility of being financially bankrupt unless they retract their defamatory statements, is the only option. And if they are already penniless, as is most likely given they are Wikipedia addicts, then destroy their reputations through the power of the internet, just as they seek to destroy the reputations of their enemies with the same. If they get their defence crowdfunded, then drain that, with glee, making sure they know every penny wasted on that, is a penny lost to securing Wikipedia's financial independence.
If they remotely had a case, if they could prove the Mail is what they claim it is, then telling the truth, doing things the right way, would have been the sensible option. It would protect their wallets and their reputations. Instead, they chose to risk it all. That is how deep this hatred goes. That is the undeniable truth of what Wikipedia is, who the Wikipedians are.
They deserve everything that is coming to them for being so bold and blatant. Everything.
Unsurprisingly, not a word was said about Primefac being on this panel, even though it's purpose is to theoretically examine the community view of the decision he made as a member of the original panel.This request for comment was created to review the results of a January 2017 RfC, which established consensus that the Daily Mail was not a reliable source, and that its use in most Wikipedia articles was prohibited. Overturning this result requires a demonstration that community consensus on this point has changed.
Reviewing the substance of the arguments presented here, we find that there is firm consensus against overturning the previous RfC. This is true with respect to the strength of the arguments, examined in greater detail below, and the numerical distribution of !votes, where more than two-thirds of those commenting here opposed overturning previous consensus.
A number of arguments on both sides of this debate were related to false or misleading stories published by the Daily Mail. The evidence for these arguments was very similar in nature to that advanced in the first RfC, and the pattern demonstrated by this evidence is essentially the same here as in that discussion: evidence for unverified, fabricated, and incorrect information is widespread.
Several arguments to reverse the previous restriction on the Daily Mail cited its change in editor. However, no substantive evidence was put forward demonstrating that such a change in reliability has already occurred, and several editors said in response that two months is too short a period for any substantial change to have occurred.
Some editors suggested that the previous RfC needed to be overturned because there were non-controversial facts which were reported in the Daily Mail and nowhere else. We note that the use of the Daily Mail as a source in such instances, in addition to being allowed explicitly by the previous RfC, would be covered by WP:IAR in any case.
Finally, a number of editors argued that other publications were similarly, or more, unreliable than the Daily Mail. We note that the unreliability of a different source is a reason to remove that source, and is irrelevant here; regardless, these other publications are outside the scope of this RfC, and if there are lingering concerns about other tabloids or tabloids in general, a separate RfC is necessary to assess current consensus about them.
Signed,
Vanamonde (talk) 05:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Ymblanter (talk) 07:22, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Primefac (talk) 11:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
They were of course hugely influenced by the number of votes on each side, giving no indication of whether they did anything more than count them. So much for 'not a vote'.
They claim they also took into account strength of argument, but their summation of the main themes is of course lacking in many respects, leaving many issues with the weakness of the arguments made completely unaddressed. As I predicted.
They claim the evidence presented is the same, neatly sidestepping all the complaints about the nature of it, which was as important if not more so than the issue of there being a new editor. We will apparently never get a formal statement as to why all it ever seems to take to convince Wikipedians that a national newspaper is guilty of the most serious examples of misconduct, as a matter of routine, allegedly because it is their entire business mode, is anecdotal evidence drawn from biased and otherwise unreliable sources.
The only evidence not meeting that bill, is IPSO data, and the closers of course have made no mention at all of the debate surrounding its interpretation. There is not even a hint that they appreciate this would be an important aspect of the debate that needs summation. Not least since deliberate misrepresentation of IPSO data by the initiator, who then later admitted he had "used Daily Mail tactics" to achieve what he wanted, was a key factor in the original ban debate. That person is now banned from Wikipedia, for entirely unrelated but troubling patterns of showing complete disrespect for basic Wikipedia policy, one with legal implications.
There is repetition of the obviously false claim that there are some instances where use of the Mail as a source for facts that cannot be sourced elsewhere, would be tolerated. It is not, this has been proven both in theory and in fact. Why lie about something so obviously untrue? Because this is all about PR. They hate it when people call this a ban, so they put that lie in there yet again, just so it can be claimed it is not a ban.
There is a repetition of the utter absurdity it is that there really is nothing wrong with how the Wikipedians seem to be deliberately singling out the Mail, choosing not to take the same action for other sources that are being used right now, but are deemed to be just as unreliable, if not more so. The ban debate on The Sun is still sitting there, unclosed, despite the fact it predates this debate. Why?
We know why they are singling out the Mail, several of the Wikipedians said it outright. They are pissed that the rest of the world still sees the Mail as a serious newspaper, not a tabloid rag, and they want to change that perception. It ironically doesn't seem to matter that their own Wikipedia article on it does not support their claims (because they cannot reliably source it, they just hope readers will be confused by their mention of "tabloid" in the format context), it only lists criticism as anecdotes, and none rise to the level of national scandal seen in other titles. They hope to be a driver of the change they want to see, presumably through a variant of the mechanism of citogenisis, using the views of Wikipedians to seed what ultimately becomes true by being sourced in a Wikipedia article.
There is no mention of any of those inconvenient truths in this closure, the seeds of this hatred. They only mention the apparently unpersuasive whinges of the whingers. They are confident the opinions of people like Guy Chapman and Guy Macon, which give exact and quotable reasons why there is singular focus on the Mail, will remain unseen, buried in the mass of repetitious and fact averse text they call a debate, which they now claim to have summarised. It would not do to allow the press to quote those parts. All about the PR. Neutrality? Pah.
This is an indefensible closure. Nothing will be done about it. There will be no consequences for Wikipedia making a statement like this....
.....soon to be repeated in the Mail's competitors, and therefore fed right back into Wikipedia as an accepted truth, even though it is at best, a misrepresentation (hinges on interpretation of "widespread" in the context of a mass circulation national newspaper), at worst, a deliberate smear (easily proven to be the case when you look at the prevalence of bias and emotionally driven commentary on the part of numerous supporters of the ban).evidence for unverified, fabricated, and incorrect information [in stories published by the Daily Mail] is widespread.
It is fitting that Wikipedia, in the context of a debate about accuracy, still seemingly can't settle this issue with any more precision than "widespread". Almost as if they really don't care about the consequences of their actions on the reputations of professional people. They were given a chance to rectify that mistake, a chance to prove this ban was absolutely grounded in solid evidence that demonstrated an actual pattern of significant impact, that this was all done for unassailably pure motives and featured sound reasoning and impeccable ettiquette throughout, ideally by people who have the first clue about the relevant issues, namely how newspapers work. They rejected the chance, and just doubled down on the mistake. That is now unafraid they are of any kind of repurcussions for their collective ignorance and malfeasance.
I said it before. Holding them to account using the courts, is the only way anything will change. They are already morally bankrupt, so presenting them with the possibility of being financially bankrupt unless they retract their defamatory statements, is the only option. And if they are already penniless, as is most likely given they are Wikipedia addicts, then destroy their reputations through the power of the internet, just as they seek to destroy the reputations of their enemies with the same. If they get their defence crowdfunded, then drain that, with glee, making sure they know every penny wasted on that, is a penny lost to securing Wikipedia's financial independence.
If they remotely had a case, if they could prove the Mail is what they claim it is, then telling the truth, doing things the right way, would have been the sensible option. It would protect their wallets and their reputations. Instead, they chose to risk it all. That is how deep this hatred goes. That is the undeniable truth of what Wikipedia is, who the Wikipedians are.
They deserve everything that is coming to them for being so bold and blatant. Everything.
Re: The Daily Mail ban
Of course he does. They ignored everything Guy Macon also ignored, they valued everything Guy Macon values. When the loudest most screechiest most arrogant most game-playing participant in a debate heaps praise on your summation of it, that should really be the sign you have fucked up.Guy_Macon wrote:In my personal opinion, the closers did an excellent job. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:56, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
The closers said the Daily Mail could still be used when people invoke IAR. Guy Macon is even fine with that, because like he said, this is not a situation that can ever happen, because the Daily Mail has never published anything Wikipedia needs to use. He said this even though Wikipedia still has THOUSANDS of Daily Mail citations.
The level of self-deceit in all of this, is incredible. They ignore how the Daily Mail is currently being used by Wikipedia, they ignore how the ban is currently viewed and enforced (as a no exceptions ban), and they ignore how stupid this looks when you look at how other sources are treated.
They fucked up.
Serious legal action. It will be the only way any of this is rectified.
Re: The Daily Mail ban
Oh wait, a second ringing endorsement.
Every time I look at that debate, I notice something else the closers have ignored, presumably deliberately.
I keep laughing at the fact that, anecdotes aside, literally nothing Guy Macon claimed about the Daily Mail, is present on the Wikipedia article for the Daily Mail. Why? Because he was talking out of his ass. He was saying what he wanted the truth to be, his perception of what the anecdotes show, not what it is, or would be, if looked at by someone who doesn't have a screw loose. This is the power Wikipedia has given him.
One of Macon's biggest lies was that the Mail is just one big copyright violation factory, so much so you have to assume every single piece has been ripped off. The Wikipedia article only goes as far as saying they have been widely criticised for copyright violations, and even that, of course, fails verification when you read the source that supposedly backs this claim up. And that only appears in the introduction, because they would struggle badly to flesh it out into a paragraph of the main article (and when your goal is smearing, you target those who only read the introduction).
These three pieces of shit, have enabled the Guy Macon's of this world to construct an alternate reality, one that is even more false than a Wikipedia article. And as we all know, you can put any old shit in a Wikipedia article. At least in an article about something the Wikipedians hate.
No wonder the retards are ecstatic. They got their every wish granted, and they really didn't have to put any effort in at all. Beyond My Ken's contribution was one line. The sad little troll that he is. And that one line, saw him added to the vote count. The closers have nothing to say about the fact he and many like him completely ignored most of the stated reasons for the debate, choosing to focus on this entirely false premise that it was being held solely because of the new editor.
They will never ever explain why they did that. They did it because that was what prominent Mail hater Guy Chapman said it was about. He said jump, and they said OK, but just not in my hair, right? This is how Wikipedia operates. One big stitch up. You think they gave a fying fuck about due process, about weighing up the strength of argument? You believe that, you really are a moron.
It took the Wikipedians months to realise a claim about the Mail's reliability in their Wikipedia article was sourced to an unreliable source. Months. It was there while this debate happened. That is how little they give a shit about the issue of reliability of sources. That is how little regard they have for not using their servers to damage the reputation of a paper they clearly hate for reasons of politics and most likely, jealousy.
What happened to extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence? Ask one of these three fucksticks, they will not have a reply. Do they think the things said by Macon et al are not extraordinary?
They will keep doing this until someone makes sure there are consequences for their actions. Serious, life-altering consequences.
Two of the biggest retards on Wikipedia think this was a good close. Alarm bells should be ringing.I have to agree: the closing statement is clear, well-reasoned, and easily understandable, and does a very good job of summing up the consensus of the RfC. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Every time I look at that debate, I notice something else the closers have ignored, presumably deliberately.
I keep laughing at the fact that, anecdotes aside, literally nothing Guy Macon claimed about the Daily Mail, is present on the Wikipedia article for the Daily Mail. Why? Because he was talking out of his ass. He was saying what he wanted the truth to be, his perception of what the anecdotes show, not what it is, or would be, if looked at by someone who doesn't have a screw loose. This is the power Wikipedia has given him.
One of Macon's biggest lies was that the Mail is just one big copyright violation factory, so much so you have to assume every single piece has been ripped off. The Wikipedia article only goes as far as saying they have been widely criticised for copyright violations, and even that, of course, fails verification when you read the source that supposedly backs this claim up. And that only appears in the introduction, because they would struggle badly to flesh it out into a paragraph of the main article (and when your goal is smearing, you target those who only read the introduction).
These three pieces of shit, have enabled the Guy Macon's of this world to construct an alternate reality, one that is even more false than a Wikipedia article. And as we all know, you can put any old shit in a Wikipedia article. At least in an article about something the Wikipedians hate.
No wonder the retards are ecstatic. They got their every wish granted, and they really didn't have to put any effort in at all. Beyond My Ken's contribution was one line. The sad little troll that he is. And that one line, saw him added to the vote count. The closers have nothing to say about the fact he and many like him completely ignored most of the stated reasons for the debate, choosing to focus on this entirely false premise that it was being held solely because of the new editor.
They will never ever explain why they did that. They did it because that was what prominent Mail hater Guy Chapman said it was about. He said jump, and they said OK, but just not in my hair, right? This is how Wikipedia operates. One big stitch up. You think they gave a fying fuck about due process, about weighing up the strength of argument? You believe that, you really are a moron.
It took the Wikipedians months to realise a claim about the Mail's reliability in their Wikipedia article was sourced to an unreliable source. Months. It was there while this debate happened. That is how little they give a shit about the issue of reliability of sources. That is how little regard they have for not using their servers to damage the reputation of a paper they clearly hate for reasons of politics and most likely, jealousy.
What happened to extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence? Ask one of these three fucksticks, they will not have a reply. Do they think the things said by Macon et al are not extraordinary?
They will keep doing this until someone makes sure there are consequences for their actions. Serious, life-altering consequences.
Re: The Daily Mail ban
Mail hating Guy Chapman on his favourite pet peeve (pseudoscience).....
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... or-website
Independent? Well, at the time of the ban, Jimmy Wales was a board member of the Guardian Media Group. Additionally, the person who kicked off the ban, Hillbillyholiday, admitted later that he had been in communication with the Guardian to tip them off ahead of time that he was going to do this, so they could publish right when it happened. The WMF also sent their official statement on the ban only to the Guardian, meaning it was available for that report before the Mail had exercised their right of reply. Katherine Maher has also regularly written for the Guardian, before and after the ban, and her columns directly referred to the Mail ban as if it was somehow a good thing. While the Guardian stopped short of doing the same, the background details of their report paints a rather flattering picture of Wikipedia, and the context set it as part of the debate surrounding fake news. It is a wonder they even bothered to highlight that Wikipedia chose to ban the Mail before they banned RT.
Secondary? Arguably the communications between Hillbillyholiday and the paper's links with the WMF make the Guardian a primary source here. There isn't much evidence in that report that the Guardian did their own fact checking, much less analysis. They evidently saught to explain only things that were already self evident from the debate (reading <> journalism) or information that was provided to them by the parties involved (repeating what you were told <> reporting). Are Guardian readers meant to know what "the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability" means? Given that term has a very specific Wikipedia meaning, very different from its real world usage. It was an odd thing for the closers to say, to a lay person, since it has nothing really to do with the nominal issue of reliability in the real world sense. It is merely a consequence of Wikipedia defining what is important as what is covered in reliable sources, hence the clear temptation to use a declaration of unreliability to satisfy a quite different motive than protecting people from fake news. A secondary source treatment would have spotted that oddity quite quickly, and the many others, and been able to tie it into the morphing of the meaning of "fake news" away from actually false reporting, to reporting I don't like. As it happens, the only truly secondary coverage of the ban I saw, namely an analysis of what happened (and what did not happen), rather than mere regurgitation and primary level reportage, was a critical piece in Forbes. Despite being penned by a recognised expert, it is deemed unreliable and primary by Wikipedia.
Reliable? In cases like this, where the Guardian is not merely reporting what went on, but has deep links between the sources feeding them information, and shared ideological motives, they have a terrible example of poor journalistic standards in their recent history - traingate.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... n-too-fast
Last but not least, it is worth noting that very early in the ban proposal, Hillbillyholiday chose to directly compare the reliability of the Guardian to the Mail using their respective IPSO records. It was just unfortunate that the Guardian is not regulated by IPSO, hence their apparent perfect record. The Guardian journalist writing this piece somehow failed to spot this, or chose not to report it. The Forbes piece, did spot it.
Just another example of what this was all about. The total deception of a completely ignorant general public.
So you really have to ask, does he really not know, or is he just not bothered, about the following inconvenient facts about how Wikipedia's article on the Daily Mail, details their ban of the paper, sourced to.....I know that Wikipedia is increasingly losing sight of the WP:RS trifecta of reliable, independent and secondary.Arguing for all three every time is a lost cause. But unreliable, primary and affiliated is 0/3 and not a good idea even when we immediately rebut and debunk it.
That's my view, and it's constant across all articles.
Guy (Help!) 14:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... or-website
Independent? Well, at the time of the ban, Jimmy Wales was a board member of the Guardian Media Group. Additionally, the person who kicked off the ban, Hillbillyholiday, admitted later that he had been in communication with the Guardian to tip them off ahead of time that he was going to do this, so they could publish right when it happened. The WMF also sent their official statement on the ban only to the Guardian, meaning it was available for that report before the Mail had exercised their right of reply. Katherine Maher has also regularly written for the Guardian, before and after the ban, and her columns directly referred to the Mail ban as if it was somehow a good thing. While the Guardian stopped short of doing the same, the background details of their report paints a rather flattering picture of Wikipedia, and the context set it as part of the debate surrounding fake news. It is a wonder they even bothered to highlight that Wikipedia chose to ban the Mail before they banned RT.
Secondary? Arguably the communications between Hillbillyholiday and the paper's links with the WMF make the Guardian a primary source here. There isn't much evidence in that report that the Guardian did their own fact checking, much less analysis. They evidently saught to explain only things that were already self evident from the debate (reading <> journalism) or information that was provided to them by the parties involved (repeating what you were told <> reporting). Are Guardian readers meant to know what "the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability" means? Given that term has a very specific Wikipedia meaning, very different from its real world usage. It was an odd thing for the closers to say, to a lay person, since it has nothing really to do with the nominal issue of reliability in the real world sense. It is merely a consequence of Wikipedia defining what is important as what is covered in reliable sources, hence the clear temptation to use a declaration of unreliability to satisfy a quite different motive than protecting people from fake news. A secondary source treatment would have spotted that oddity quite quickly, and the many others, and been able to tie it into the morphing of the meaning of "fake news" away from actually false reporting, to reporting I don't like. As it happens, the only truly secondary coverage of the ban I saw, namely an analysis of what happened (and what did not happen), rather than mere regurgitation and primary level reportage, was a critical piece in Forbes. Despite being penned by a recognised expert, it is deemed unreliable and primary by Wikipedia.
Reliable? In cases like this, where the Guardian is not merely reporting what went on, but has deep links between the sources feeding them information, and shared ideological motives, they have a terrible example of poor journalistic standards in their recent history - traingate.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... n-too-fast
Last but not least, it is worth noting that very early in the ban proposal, Hillbillyholiday chose to directly compare the reliability of the Guardian to the Mail using their respective IPSO records. It was just unfortunate that the Guardian is not regulated by IPSO, hence their apparent perfect record. The Guardian journalist writing this piece somehow failed to spot this, or chose not to report it. The Forbes piece, did spot it.
Just another example of what this was all about. The total deception of a completely ignorant general public.