After editors at Wikipedia decided that the Daily Mail should no longer be regarded as a reliable source for citations, the wrath of the legendarily foul mouthed Paul Dacre was as expected: the Vagina Monologue commanded hatchet job conjurer in chief Guy Adams to go in with both feet on the the ubiquitous Free Encyclopedia. After that, a sneering and suitably aloof spokesman poured scorn on the site for Press Gazette.
What's f***ing wrong with a little plagiarism, c***?!? Er, with the greatest of respect, Mr Jay
Adams’ article told readers all about “The making of a Wiki-Lie: Chilling story of one twisted oddball and a handful of anonymous activists who appointed themselves as censors to promote their own warped agenda on a website that's a byword for inaccuracy”. Wikipedia editor Michael Cockram was singled out for a ritual punishment beating, dismissed as a “bigoted oddball” (yes, by someone who works for Paul Dacre).
Then came the follow-up in Press Gazette, where “A spokesperson for Mail Newspapers said: ‘It is hard to know whether to laugh or cry at this move by Wikipedia - a website that is notorious for its own inaccuracy and false truths, and which was co-founded by a man who doctored his own biographical entry … For the record the Daily Mail, in common with most reputable academic institutions, banned all its journalists from using Wikipedia as a sole source in 2014 because of its unreliability”.
Updated half an hour too late
As if the Mail, a newspaper notorious for falsehood and misinformation, can be put alongside “reputable academic institutions”. Still, it didn’t stop Adams bleating “the Mail won Sports Newspaper Of The Year for an unprecedented fourth straight time, and was shortlisted for 15 awards at the British Press Awards, the news industry’s Oscars”.
Whoops! Citation left in when copying and pasting
Hurting, much? But that was nothing compared to the embarrassment caused today by the revelation that the Mail’s ban on using Wikipedia is not quite as watertight as claimed. We know this after the unfortunate Heidi Parker, who appears to churn out as many as seven “articles” a day for Mail Online (or DailyMail dot Com, depending on your preference), was caught blatantly copying and pasting from the allegedly banned source.
Updated - but after screen shots taken
Under the headline “'It was fun!': Javier Bardem says he enjoyed working with Spanish siren wife Penelope Cruz for THIRD TIME as they filmed Pablo Escobar movie”, Ms Parker told readers “In 2007, Bardem began dating Cruz when they worked together on Vicky Cristina Barcelona … They wed in July 2010 in The Bahamas. They have two children: a son, born in 2011, in Los Angeles; and a daughter, born in 2013, in Madrid”.
Verdict on "we don't use Wikipedia"?
What’s that  doing there? Er, that’s because she copied and pasted from Wikipedia and forgot to remove the citation. The Wiki original reads “The couple married in July 2010 in The Bahamas. They have two children: a son, born in 2011, in Los Angeles; and a daughter, born in 2013, in Madrid.”. BUSTED.
Ms Parker’s article, as can now be seen, was updated last night to remove the howler, but the Wikipedia lift is still there. All of which shows that while Wikipedia has stuck to its guns on the Mail, the Northcliffe House hypocrisy brigade have not.
Guy Adams, in his Wikipedia hatchet job, claimed “the Mail has an enviable record on accuracy”. That’s because it gets its information from Wikipedia. Away with you.
"Spanish siren wife"?
She can at least console herself she isn't a corrupt, lying, racist, neofascist, toadying far right propaganda clerk employed in an organisation with a proven history of supporting mass murdering Nazis.
Another Wikipedia entry she may like to read:
Whenever the Wikipedia and the Mail meet the irony levels are off the chart.
Post a Comment