Jump to content

User:Shashi Sushila Murray/sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Daily Mail Ban section for Criticism of Wikipedia

[edit]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

After being accused of "'poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication"[1] [2] Wikipedia's volunteer editors banned The Daily Mail as a source and faced criticism. The ban consisted of use of the source as being "'generally prohibited' as a reference on Wikipedia, 'especially when other more reliable sources exist."[2][3][4][5] However, one critic emphasizes that this is still, in effect, "a 'ban' or a 'blacklist' in any other word.[6] The Daily Mail responded in an op-ed[7] pointing out that putative consensus was established by turning to only "53 of its editors, or 0.00018 per cent of the site's 30 million total, plus five 'administrators'."[7][4] During the debate some editors "argue that singling out an individual source ignores other questionable sources that are still allowed on Wikipedia."[2][5] According to The Daily Mail some of these sources include China's Xinhua News Agency, Iran's Press TV, Russia's Russia today,[4] North Korea's Korean Central News Agency, or Exaro ("the now-defunct British website notorious for making false claims about an establishment paedophile ring").[7] Further critiquing the process, and evaluation, of putative consensus, The Daily Mail by pointing out that "No further steps were taken to gauge the opinion of Wikipedia’s wider user base, or to establish if there was any evidence to support the contention that this paper is somehow ‘unreliable’."[7] The Daily Mail additionally pointed out that Hillbillyholiday,[1] the user who started the ban, has bias "... evident in the fact that he also uses the alias ‘Tabloid Terminator’ and who has included an image of himself burning a copy of the Mail on his profile page."[7] WRITE DETAILS ABOUT THE REPORTING ON THE DEBATE HERE.[3][4][7] [1][2][5]

Although the Wikimedia Foundation denied their involvement in the decision making process "... the very first comment on that page, posted by the user who initiated the entire process, claims that Wikipedia Founder Jimmy Wales himself supported the argument that the Daily Mail is an unreliable source and specifically cites Wales' status as the founder of Wikipedia in arguing for the linking ban."[6]

A list of reasons why [to ban the paper as a source] would be enormous, it doesn’t need reiterating, the paper is trash, pure and simple.

There may be rare exceptions where a reference may be useful, perhaps when a Mail story is itself the subject — cases could be presented here for discussion.

There is little chance anything of encyclopedic value would be lost from such a move, and everything to be gained, not least an end to continual Mail-related arguments

— Hillbilly Holiday

However, critics also refer to The Daily Mail as having "... at times been as wildly inaccurate as it is widely read."[2] In a Slate argued that this was "... a richly deserved rebuke to a publication that represents some of the worst forces in online news."[5]

"... 'community consensus' is meant to refer ot the small elite cadre of Wikipedia editors, rather than the views of the Internet public and Wikipedia's own users at large."[6]

I'm working on a section to add to the Criticism of Wikipedia page. So far I have "consensus": Talk:Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Daily_Mail_ban_meets_WP:GNG_notability_guidelines

Miscellaneous Sources & Drafting

[edit]

Amusing Ourselves to Death

[edit]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

J. Michael Proule characterizes Postman's book as "an epistemic critique of modern society" in which a world of rational discourse (mediated by the propositional content of print-medium) was transformed into a world of entertainment-oriented discourse (mediated by telegraphy and photography).

Proule finds that "Postman's book represents both a useful general synthesis of communication in American culture and a unique applied inquiry into modern social epistemology." Proule offers three critiques: 1) "Postman's glorification of nineteenth century [American] print culture" since he didn't include research "research on the differences between written and oral style." 2) Postman's work lacks cross-cultural analysis, that is, "As with any aspect of culture, TV is subject to social control. Postman avoids discussion of this aspect of present and potential programming. Similarly, he neglects to compare American institutions to conditions in the world's other TV societies, some of which choose to make available programming of a type different than that found in America." And 3) Postman's treatment of "present American TV programming as essentially immutable." Proule points to the American progressive era critics of the new medium of TV whose "proposals for reform of the media possessed the additional insight that media are political as well as epistemic. The progressives realized that if the natural tendencies of society's business institutions were subject to deflection, then so too was the future of America's media of communication."

Donald and Virginia Fry point out that "rather than presenting a carefully constructed empirical analysis [Postman] opts for argument based on anecdote" and that his work "is most comforable in the company of works such as Eistenstein's The Printing Press as an Agent of Change, Meyrowitz' No Sense of Place, and Ong's Orality and Literacy. However, "It would be unfortunate, however, if readers dismissed this book simply because it did not conform to their preferred intellectual style, rules of evidence, or mode of argument."

"With a wit. Postman attempts to 'demystify' our media through a simple yet clever language."

"This is a rather bloated indictment * for such a slender volume, the brevity of which may be due to the author's professed fear that television has short- ened our attention span. Brevity aside. Postman for the Prosecution states his case with clarity and conviction. At times, he even resorts to humor—de- spite the fact that placing a premium n "entertainment values" rather than logically structured information is one of the gravest charges he brings against the accused."

This one is full of ironic hypocrisy. Will reread and carefully select appropriate segments.

  • Hughey, Matthew (May 2015). "On the Importance of Books, Reviews, and Humanist Sociology". Humanity & Society. 39 (2): 254–260 – via EBSCO host.
  • King, Elliot (Summer 2009). "Essential Readings in Journalism". American Journalism: 168–183 – via EBSCO host.

Elliot King in American Journalism sought to answer the question “From the entire body of literature (literature used here in the academic sense) that has been written about journalism, are there any books recognized as essential for journalism students, journalists, and perhaps all well educatedpersons to have read?” and created what may be "the largest focus group ever to address this topic and the results are certainly worth serious reflection." On this list Amusing Ourselves to Death appeared at number nine. "Written as a screed against television prior to the rise of the Internet, Amusing Ourselves to Death seems dated. Moreover, it is offered up as a piece of general social commentary and criticism of which a critique of journalism is only a part. Nonetheless, Postman is a very accessible writer and he makes an argument that, while somewhat extreme, is impossible to dismiss easily."

Religion Oriented Reviews

[edit]
  • Rottmann, Erik (Oct 1995). "Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business". Logia. 4 (4): 72–73. ISSN 1064-0398 – via EBSCO host.

He just summarizes the book for a low-brow audience, then connects it to worship: entertainment corrupting traditional liturgy.

"Postman's book is especially important for religious communicators."

"There are some important implications for preachers in Postman's observations. First, rhetorical and homiletical theory demands that we understand how our listeners hear and understand. And if they are to hear God's word, then our method of communication must be adapted to them. The inductive and narrative approach to preaching seems to be fairly close to the way people, conditioned by television, listen and understand. Craddock, Steimle, Long, and Lowry have all provided a valuable service by helping us to develop this homiletical form."

"But our religious conviction demands that we not accept entertainment, which seems to be the overarching model for our culture, as the model for the church. At what point does the inductive approach lead to this acceptance? Biblical preaching would require that we help our people revive their capacity to think and reason for themselves why they believe what they do and to understand the demanding nature of Christianity."

"There are also some important implications for those who are involved in the teaching profession."

"At times one might think that Postman overstates his case and becomes too harsh and sarcastic (see, for example, p. 5, first paragraph; also p. 83), and it seems that he makes too much of a generalization in arguing that everyone gets his model for speaking and preaching and teaching from television. But his is an important book to read and seriously consider. While he spends most of the book warning us about the dangerous model television sets for public discourse, he spends only a few pages talking about solutions (pp. 158-163) and only one of those, he says, would really be effective, that is, to rely on schools to educate people in how television is used. Despite its weak ending and a nostalgic portrayal of the past, the book deserves attention because of the distressing view that it offers."

  • Noone, R M (Winter 1988). "Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business". Religious Education. 83: 1. ISSN 0034-4087 – via EBSCO host.

"Postman writes with a clarity of expression and humour that makes his books very easy to read. But the reader should not be fooled into thinking that the thesis outlined in the book is a superficial or simple one. Postman presents a complex argument and deserves additional credit for presenting it so cogently."

"In extending some of the ideas of Innis & McLu-han, Postman has been a pioneer and something of a prophet."

"What Postman's work offers is a context, an explanation of cultural change which helps us understand why some methodologies used in religious education are irrelevant and others suspect."

  • Troeger, Thomas (June 1986). "Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business". Homiletic. 11 (1): 27–29. ISSN 0738-0534 – via EBSCO host.

Citations for when I'm autoconfirmed

[edit]

Confucius

[edit]

During his return, Confucius sometimes acted as an advisor to several government officials in Lu, including Ji Kangzi, on matters including governance and crime.[8]

Burdened by the loss of both his son and his favorite disciples, he died at the age of 71 or 72. He died from natural causes. Confucius was buried in Kong Lin cemetery which lies in the historical part of Qufu in the Shandong Province.[citation needed][8][9][10] The original tomb erected there in memory of Confucius on the bank of the Sishui River had the shape of an axe. In addition, it has a raised brick platform at the front of the memorial for offerings such as sandalwood incense and fruit.

References

[edit]
  1. ^ a b c Sommers, Jack (October 2, 2017). "Daily Mail Hits Back At Wikipedia After It Bans Tabloid As Source, Calling It Unreliable". The Huffington Post. Retrieved November 2, 2018.
  2. ^ a b c d e Kludt, Tom (February 9, 2017). "Wikipedia bans citations of The Daily Mail". CNN. Retrieved November 2, 2018.
  3. ^ a b Sharman, Jon (February 9, 2017). "Wikipedia bans the Daily Mail as a source for being 'unreliable'". Independent. Retrieved November 2, 2018.
  4. ^ a b c d Jackson, Jasper (February 8, 2017). "Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' source". The Guardian. Retrieved November 2, 2018.
  5. ^ a b c d Oremus, Will (February 9, 2017). "Wikipedia's Daily Mail Ban Is a Welcome Rebuke to Terrible Journalism". Slate. Retrieved November 2, 2018.
  6. ^ a b c Leetaru, Kalev (February 10, 2017). "What Wikipedia's Daily Mail 'Ban' Tells Us About The Future Of Online Censorship". Forbes. Retrieved November 2, 2018.
  7. ^ a b c d e f Adams, Guy (March 3, 2017). "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". The Daily Mail. Retrieved November 2, 2018.
  8. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference return was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  9. ^ Centre, UNESCO World Heritage. "Temple and Cemetery of Confucius and the Kong Family Mansion in Qufu". whc.unesco.org. Retrieved 2018-10-31.
  10. ^ "Confucius". Biography. Retrieved 2018-10-31.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User:Shashi_Sushila_Murray/sandbox&oldid=867009320"