User talk:Hillbillyholiday/Tabloid Terminator - Wikipedia
Article Images
A guide to tabloid sources
Minions' opinions |
---|
How shitty is the Daily Mail? I hear it's pretty shitty.. Moni3, 30 June 2010
The Daily Mail is a cheap tabloid, its racist, misogynist, and I would say completely unreliable for anything other than a direct quotation.
217.202.76.53, 22 November 2008
MickMacNee, 13 May 2011
Stifle, 7 October 2012
MastCell, 13 November 2008
Nev1, 15 June 2009
MjolnirPants, 6 January 2017
Laurdecl, 8 January 2017
Guy Macon, 7-8 January 2017
MASEM, 8 January 2017 |
Jimbo |
---|
The Daily Mail is of frightfully low quality most of the time...I'm not comfortable with us using them as a source for anything, other than in some very very specific circumstances. Jimbo Wales, 7 May 2011
Jimbo Wales, 10 May 2011
Jimbo Wales, 10 May 2011
|
Tawdry Media Zone |
---|
Regardless of any tendentious editing or stalking, I'd say that TMZ is definitely not a reliable source for anything. Conti, 15 May 2009 Why? What led you to this conclusion? Dlabtot, 15 May 2009 Being a "celebrity gossip" site, for starters. Have you visited the site? There are no authors (every article is by "TMZ Staff"), and the "articles" are short, sarcastic blurbs about whose butt got bigger or which celebrity got caught playing minigolf. Celebrity gossip isn't anything we want to cover here anyhow, per WP:BLP.
Rd232, 18 May 2009
|
Facepalm |
---|
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_35#National_Enquirer Is the National Enquirer (in print since 1926 and not known for inventing stories) a reliable source? RATEL, 15 May 2009 "Not known for inventing stories"? WP:Editors_will_sometimes_be_wrong Are tabloids often right? Yep. Are they RS by WP standards? Nope. If the material is notable, it should end up in a citable place, until then best to leave tabloids out of BLPs. Collect, 15 May 2009 No way that the Enquirer should ever be considered a reliable source. They simply do not have a reputation for factual accuracy. Blueboar, 15 May 2009 Still waiting for a single instance of the National Enquirer being proved to be an unreliable source .... waiting, waiting... RATEL, 15 May 2009 Really. Why don't you check the article itself. I'd suggest that out of court settlements over libel and apologies over inaccuracies might constitute evidence. If you like I can look for more. Protonk, 15 May 2009 There aren't that many stories about their reliability "problems" because nobody takes them seriously. I'm astounded that anybody would consider taking them seriously from an encyclopedic viewpoint. Have you read an issue? Bhimaji, 15 May 2009 |