This has made my morning.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia-bans-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website

Is the news that it’s taken this long?

Should be all newspapers really if they want to go down that route. They present opinions on events, not news, and the underlying facts are presented according to interpretation based on the paper’s bias or the writer/editor’s opinion. Nothing shocking about that, it’s just what newspapers actually are.

Though referencing them should still be possible, so long as the references are stated as opinion not fact.

Should be all newspapers really if they want to go down that route.

Well there’s the rub. All news outlets have an agenda or bias, and not all news is pleasant reading; it’s working out whether that bias affects the credibility of their reporting.

Should be all newspapers really if they want to go down that route. They present opinions on events, not news, and the underlying facts are presented according to interpretation based on the paper’s bias or the writer/editor’s opinion.

Many of the better papers do still report and present an honest report

@deadkenny – From the linked article:

“Summarising the discussion, a Wikipedia editor wrote: “Consensus has determined that the Daily Mail (including its online version dailymail.co.uk) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles. An edit filter should be put in place, going forward to warn editors attempting to use the Daily Mail as a reference.”

The move is likely to stop short of prohibiting linking to the Daily Mail, as there will be instances, such as when a Wikipedia entry is about the newspaper or one of its writers, when the editors believe a link is necessary. Instead a system for flagging any uses of the newspaper as a source will be introduced, asking editors not to use it and find alternatives.”

Melania Trump is suing the Mail for £150 Million(high class escort allegations), I’m not sure who I want to lose.

Ye gods, imagine the Tr*mp family fortune at this moment in time. He’s milking his ‘moment’ like a drunken uncle on a golden podium. And every ‘speech’ he makes looks and sounds like his own award-ceremony. Maybe he could pay off a DM hack to write something libelous, then sue the DM for libel, then employ the hack to write a future-bestselling autobiog; ‘I TRUMPED THE WORLD’. or ‘TRUMPOWER’ or something.

Melania Trump is suing the Mail for £150 Million(high class escort allegations), I’m not sure who I want to lose.

With £150million she would be able to leave the Republican Nightmare. On balance her but only for this reason.

I’m not sure who I want to lose.

Score draw with a costs and mutual embarrassment. Like the revelation that Mrs Trump has determined the cost benefits of being first lady

Melania Trump is suing the Mail for £150 Million(high class escort allegations), I’m not sure who I want to lose.

Presumably you’d want the one that’s lying to lose?

Ye gods, imagine the Tr*mp family fortune at this moment in time. He’s milking his ‘moment’ like a drunken uncle on a golden podium.

Not sure of reliability as it’s straight outta Facebook and I’ve not verified each point, but makes for interesting reading on how to diddle the system:

Ten observations about the President (from the point of view of a taxpayer):
1. He takes Saturdays and Sundays off to go to Mar a Lago. I assume the First Lady and their son and their Secret Service contingents take a Trump helicopter to D.C. (which taxpayers refund the equivalent cost of Secret Service travel) and together the First Family and their Secret Service contingents then board AF1, fly to Palm Beach. There are additional policing costs which are paid by Florida/Palm Beach taxpayers. Worse is that although Donald Trump technically “owns” Mar a Lago, he only lives in part of it, and other rooms are chargeable. Which means the Trump Organization charges the U.S. government for the Secret Service to stay there.
2. Trump’s children travel on business trips with their Secret Service contingents. “The bill for the Secret Service’s hotel rooms in Uruguay (to accompany Eric Trump) totaled $88,320. The U.S. Embassy in Montevideo, the capital city of Uruguay, paid an additional $9,510 for its staff to stay in hotel rooms to “support” the Secret Service detail for the “VIP visit,” according to purchasing orders reviewed by The Washington Post.” This is, of course, in addition to salaries and overtime for the U.S. Government employees, and the cost of airfare, meals and other expenses. According to reports, on this short trip, Eric was accompanied by six Secret Service agents. But that’s beside the point. A Trump-branded property, for which the Trump Organization receives fees and royalties, gets U.S. public money to put people up, while at the same time getting an endorsement by a branch of the U.S. State Department
3. The U.S. Government reimburses the Trump Organization to rent at least one (according to the NY Post, two) whole floors of Trump Tower for their Secret Service cover to babysit Melania and Baron Trump. This is in addition to their salaries and other expenses (and NY is an expensive city) because the First Lady chooses not to live at the White House.
4. Police security for Melania and Baron Trump while they choose to live in NYC during the week is said to cost NYC taxpayers $1 million a day in police costs.
5. Trump’s family member use planes and helicopters owned by a Trump company to travel around the U.S. The travel costs of their Secret Service cover is reimbursed to Trump by the taxpayer. This includes not just Trump’s wife and sons, but also his daughter Tiffany (who lives in California and has three secret service agents) and Ivanka (who due to her profile and her role as de facto First Lady probably has a bigger compliment of Secret Service agents, and travels on both business and pleasure).
6. Trump encourages foreign dignitaries to stay in Trump properties, including the Old Post Office. Visiting dignitaries get Secret Service protection. Accommodation costs are reimbursed by the U.S. Government (i.e. taxpayers) to the Trump Organization.
7. The American Chamber of Commerce in Canada just switched the location of an event from the ambassador’s residence to a Trump-owned property. They will now have to pay Trump not just for the venue, but for rooms and other facilities such as food and beverage.
8. Public records pursuant to a Freedom of Information request show that the President hasn’t actually divested his interests. He still directly benefits from the profits of his companies. What is really interesting is: a) It is a revocable trust, organised in such a way that he can take back total control at any time, b) It was set up some time before 2014, apparently as some kind of tax efficiency arrangement, c) the trustees are Donald Jr. and the Chief Financial Officer of the Trump Organization, and d) it’s set up under the President’s personal social security number – not a separate company number.
9. When Trump was campaigning for President he used Trump properties for campaign events, Trump planes and helicopters for his travel, served Trump water, wine and steaks and paid Trump Organization staff. And he charged the campaign for all of it. He boasted fairly early on in the campaign about the vast profits he was making on it. But at least that was all on donors and the GOP, not public money.
10. After Trump received Secret Service protection, that bill skyrocketed. By September 2016, the bill for the Secret Service to travel on Trump’s private jet alone was $1.6 million.
As far as I can determine, this is the most kleptocratic set-up in U.S. history. There isn’t anything that comes close to comparing.

Should be all newspapers really if they want to go down that route. They present opinions on events, not news, and the underlying facts are presented according to interpretation based on the paper’s bias or the writer/editor’s opinion. Nothing shocking about that, it’s just what newspapers actually are.

You’re confusing editorial/ comment with news reporting. The same problem afflicts the Daily Mail…

That Daily Mail claimed that the Daily Mail was an unreliable source in 1998. It’s sales took off immediately afterwards. No one buys the Mail for factual news do they?

I don’t consider any newspaper to be a reliable source – they communicate opinions and points of view and nothing more. There has been a few instances in my life where a story hits the headlines that I have intimate knowledge of and the quality of the reporting across basically all the papers is shocking. It’s doesn’t even make good fiction in places.

Melania Trump is suing the Mail for £150 Million(high class escort allegations), I’m not sure who I want to lose.

“So, Mrs Trump, what was it about the billionaire Donald Trump that made you decide to marry him?”
I think there’s a very, very fine line here, bit like Bernie Ecclestone.

I don’t consider any newspaper to be a reliable source – they communicate opinions and points of view and nothing more.

That’s not true at all. The better newspapers have their biases in what they choose to cover, but they are able to distinguish between comment and reporting.