back to article Daily Mirror trapped in Wikicirclejerk

Yes, Virginia, Wikipedia is a trusted source for journalists the world over. Just ask David Anderson of The Daily Mirror. In late August, after the draw for this season's UEFA Cup, someone calling themselves godpants decided he would add a few words to the Wikipedia page detailing a Cypriot football club known as AC Omonia. "A …


This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Chris G Silver badge

    How very unusual

    I am amazed that the Daily Mirror has reported a fabrication of fact, not like them at all!!!!

  2. Chris Matchett
    Thumb Up

    Loving it

    Especially the bit about the 'fact' getting back into wikipedia using the fouled-up article as source. Maybe journalists should be forced to quote all sources themselves like in a university essay.

  3. TeeCee Gold badge

    Not unusual.

    With the state of the Stock Market right now, there's no mileage for Mirror hacks in running "pump 'n dump" stock scams to fleece their readers at the moment.

    This means they have enough time on their hands to look stuff up on Wikipedia to pad their crap articles, rather than letting some subbie (who does it regularly and can thus spot the bollocks) do it for them.

  4. Anonymous Coward

    who is Number57?

    Apart from the fact that this story is several weeks old and hardly, therefore, "news", does anybody know the actual identity of Number57, the wikipedia member who keeps removing references to this hoax from the page?

    A section detailing the hoax has been added several times by different people only for this one person to repeatedly remove it (as you'd know if you bothered to look at the page's history). This editor claims to be a journalist.

    One can't help but wonder if they have any connection with the Daily Mirror. I think we should be told.

  5. Jason McLaughlin


    ...all we need is for Omonia's fans to actually start calling themselves The Zany Ones and start wearing hats made of shoes to complete the circle.

  6. Scott

    New entry

    I just found on Wiki that if all Mirror readers send me all there money the queen will visit them at there house, honest its on wiki.

  7. Richard Large


    Am I really surprised?

  8. Gulfie

    It just goes to show...

    ... that Wikipedia is a dangerous, subversive revolutionary tool designed to bring the West to its knees. Clearly it needs editorial support. Why don't all the UK tabloids offer a day a week of their editors time, I'm sure we'll have the facts all straightened out in no time.

    Note to self: don't give the Royal Family section to the editor from the Express.

  9. Matt
    Thumb Up

    Ha Ha Ha Ha

    Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha :-)

  10. Pete Silver badge

    OK who's going to ...

    update the Daily Mirror's wiki entry?

    Is it possible to charge them with infringement of crappy-write?

  11. Elmer Phud

    Are these the same hacks . . .

    . . .who bleat about students using the web for course work content? The same faux journalists who get paid for presenting rumour and lies as fact?

    Most Primary school kids do better research for homework - and still get slated by the lazy bastards.

    But, Wiki and journos is another form of Rick-rolling. They'll click on anything just for a bit of copy.

  12. Sceptical Bastard

    The onward march of the morons

    "...the nonsense was reinstated - with David Anderson's UEFA Cup preview cited as a source."

    Priceless! An absoloutely perfect example of both tabloid sloppiness and the circularity of media cannibalism.

    Wikipedia is a paradignm of self-fulfilling prophesy, an inherently flawed concept. The wisdom of the herd is, in fact, no more than the babbling of the plebeian hordes. Sorry, Jimbo, your darling child just adds to the media's white noise.

    That said, the Wikipedia article on Tarantino's 'Pulp fiction' is an example of what can be done - but even that contains contentious POVs and several inacurracies.

  13. graeme leggett

    Wikipedia sources

    I note this from wikipedia's instructions on what to use as a verifiable source

    "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"

    So that's many British redtops out of the running!

  14. David

    Not the first time...

    A similar thing happened with the "Ronnie Hazlehurst co-wrote S Club 7's 'Reach'" prank ( i.e. it reappeared on the Wikipedia page with the gullible obit writers cited as sources...

  15. Anonymous Coward


    Jeez! Don't they ever learn? How many times must reporters be exposed this way before they learn anything?

    You'd think that the guy himself would say "awfuckit", be embarrassed and vow to himself not to trust Wiki. Well any sane and rational person would but I guess it's a very "special" breed that land jobs with The Mirror.

  16. Pete Silver badge


    > "Articles should rely on reliable, ... So that's many British redtops out of the running!

    Hey, many of them have up to three completely accurate facts on their front page alone:

    The price, the date and their name - surely that's enough for anyone these days?

  17. An ominous cow herd

    Let me be the first.... welcome our Zany, shoe-hat wearing overlords (even if they only exist in wikiland)

  18. david

    That's brightened my day.


  19. Anonymous Coward

    Zany Ones

    It causes me to rejoice and throw my cap in the air (Air Jordan old style) to see our wonderful fans mentioned in El Reg. What is Wikipedia.

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Paris Hilton

    It's not an encyclopædia, it's a messageboard

    Why keep describing it as "the free online encyclopedia anyone can edit" when what it really is, is "the free online messagboard where anyone can edit everyone elses' messages"?

    And is Vernon Kay still dead or have they undone that 'posted message' yet and restored him back to life?

    Still, at least it's only the Daily Mirror this time. It seemed that the whole of Fleet Street included the 'S-Club 7' nonsense in Ronnie Hazlehurst's obituaries.

  21. Jeremy


    On Wikipedia? Never! But I perused the edit history and noticed that the profile link for the unregistered user who keeps re-adding the info saying it is verifiable and should be left is mysteriously purple. It's the same IP address as was editing the plumbing article the other day so, is the Wikifiddler at (a) a reg commenter or (b) a reg staffer? Come on, own up - glory or ridicule awaits!

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022