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@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@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
Send Wikimediauk-l mailing list submissions to wikimediauk-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org
You can reach the person managing the list at wikimediauk-l-owner@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:
- Re: BBC Newsnight want to do Daily Mail vs WP:RS tonight - editor on hand? (Deryck Chan)
- Re: BBC Newsnight want to do Daily Mail vs WP:RS tonight - editor on hand? (Gordon Joly)
- Re: BBC Newsnight want to do Daily Mail vs WP:RS tonight - editor on hand? (Lucy Crompton-Reid)
- 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@gmail.com To: UK Wikimedia mailing list wikimediauk-l@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@mail.gmail. com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Interesting question from Chris.
On 9 February 2017 at 15:57, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@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@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
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org