Someone should do a text comparison of Daily Mail articles to identify all
the bits they thev almost certainly lifted from Wikipedia!
Jon Davies
arnottdavies(a)gmail.com
07976 935 986
Linkedin <https://uk.linkedin.com/in/jon-davies-4aa3a621>
*www.frenchcinema.info <http://www.frenchcinema.info>*
On 10 February 2017 at 10:06, <wikimediauk-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
wrote:
Send Wikimediauk-l mailing list submissions to
wikimediauk-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
wikimediauk-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
wikimediauk-l-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Wikimediauk-l digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: BBC Newsnight want to do Daily Mail vs WP:RS tonight -
editor on hand? (Deryck Chan)
2. Re: BBC Newsnight want to do Daily Mail vs WP:RS tonight -
editor on hand? (Gordon Joly)
3. Re: BBC Newsnight want to do Daily Mail vs WP:RS tonight -
editor on hand? (Lucy Crompton-Reid)
4. Re: Digitisaton of East India Company/ India Office records
(John Lubbock)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 17:15:06 +0000
From: Deryck Chan <deryckchan(a)gmail.com>
To: UK Wikimedia mailing list <wikimediauk-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] BBC Newsnight want to do Daily Mail vs
WP:RS tonight - editor on hand?
Message-ID:
<CA+F5PQ9XuQ2bdw4v0KXVssux3TPu3JY9WUjKZPUo-AS3et4LBQ(a)mail.gmailail.
com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Interesting question from Chris.
On 9 February 2017 at 15:57, Chris Keating <chriskeatingwiki(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Which leaves the question of "why blacklist
the Daily Mail not even worse
sources?" If anyone can suggest an answer to that which would keep a
journo
happy I'd be interested to hear it .... ;)
I think the answer is NPOV and systemic bias.
For several years I've been resisting the urge of other editors to prohibit
the use of "tabloid" newspapers in the context of establishing notability
of subjects in cultures whose primary language isn't English. I see it as a
necessary trade-off to address systemic bias.
Case in point: Some AfD editors don't like Apple Daily as a reference. But
they are the only major news outlet in Hong Kong that is openly critical of
the political establishment and supportive of the (perpetual) opposition.
I guess I'm just adding to David's comparison:
On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 3:47 PM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
compare -
* not right-wing-ness - e.g. the Times and Telegraph are both serious
papers that lean right
* in fact - The Sun is not OK and the Times is, even though same politics
and same publisher, because one's a tabloid and one's a serious paper
So:
- If blacklisting a tabloid source which sometimes produces questionable
journalism would mean a significant POV gets purged, we allow the lesser
evil of citing sources by lower-quality publishers.
- If the same publisher produces different publications that vary in
journalistic integrity, we treat each item differently.
Deryck