How very unusual
I am amazed that the Daily Mirror has reported a fabrication of fact, not like them at all!!!!
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 …
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.
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.
... 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.
. . .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.
"...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.
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.
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.
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 18.104.22.168 (a) a reg commenter or (b) a reg staffer? Come on, own up - glory or ridicule awaits!
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020