Wikipedia also includes references so you can check if you are unsure/ uneasy about some info :P
Wikipedia also includes references so you can check if you are unsure/ uneasy about some info :P
64/61 really isn't that bad.
Human progress isn't measured by industry. It's measured by the value you place on a life.
Just, be kind.
Which when you consider how many pages and languages there are, that's still an amazing accuracy level. Especially compared to many of the newspapers. The rate of having something down incorrectly drops off a cliff once you start getting quite technical and it's already not massively high.
Same difference.
its not so much that, its that the BBC is so underthreat from politicians that they have to bend over backwards not to tell us the truth about stuff, as the Tory government starts waving the licence fee abolition thing around.....
BBC used to be good, but the UK government have intimidated them into not being proper journalists, and are basically a news-lite service that goes out its way to not offend anyone.
Take the latest debate on scotland....BBC gave the impression it was an equal outcome, when even SNP members were saying Salmond fucked it up and looked a tit.
The only British news source I trust is The Economist.
On the US side there is the PBS News Hour.
Both are kind of boring.
.
"This will be a fight against overwhelming odds from which survival cannot be expected. We will do what damage we can."
-- Capt. Copeland
Tbh, wikipedia IS a good source because even if the article is not correct, it stilll gives you a rough idea and new keywords to look up.
+ the sources of the wiki article are located at the bottom of the page.
Warning : Above post may contain snark and/or sarcasm. Try reparsing with the /s argument before replying.
What the world has learned is that America is never more than one election away from losing its goddamned mindMe on Elite : Dangerous | My WoW charactersOriginally Posted by Howard Tayler
Not enough newsworthy stuff happens outside of London. Sure there's loads of local things but not enough that the whole country needs to know. It's not so much ignoring but more a lack of country shaking occurrences. Just the vast majority happens in the south. There have been numerous exceptions recently such as the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow, and the whole Scottish Independence thing. In all seriousness over the debate you could call it too neutral by trying to remain even on how that debate went, it was a catastrophic failure for Salmond but they kept passing it off as very even.
What half of the country is being ignored? It isn't any of the regions for news, as they have their own news programming, and it isn't anything non-news related as they have a range of programmes that are dedicated to all over the UK.
I just had a look at the BBC 1 London schedule for yesterday, and there was a grand total of one programme dedicated to events in the South East that wasn't regional news. That programme was about a pitbull seized in East London on an animal welfare show that covered the nation, and likely has stories from around the rest of the country on other episodes.
Tomorrow and the day after have one programme partially dedicated to the South East, as Homes Under the Hammer is looking at flats in Kent and London on both days.
On Thursday they go mad and have two programmes that relate to the South East, as Bargain Hunt visits a London dealer, and some squatters are evicted from East London in another show.
On Friday Homes Under the Hammer goes to London again for one of their properties, and Flog It is in Essex, and on Saturday and Sunday there are no shows that appear to be relevant to the South East specifically.
So unless you have some grievance that Homes Under the Hammer doesn't travel around the UK enough, where is your claim that half of the country is ignored coming from?
Wikipedia isn't perfect but I have to say I trust it a lot more than most forms of mainstream media in this day and age. Most British news outlets are becoming laughably obvious in regards to pushing a particular agenda and the amount of scandals that they've been involved in has done little to change my mind.
I think the main reason Brits trust Wikipedia more is that it isn't there souly to make money off the people who read it. Newspapers such as the Star, Mail, etc, are simply a business like every other business, who care only about making money, and if making something up, or manipulating a situation to make someone look bad so that they can sell a few extra newspapers works, then it's what they're going to do. I know you shouldn't believe everything you read on the internet, but you really should trust less of what you read in daily newspapers.
Well, some of our papers are renowned crap. Not on the Fox news level but still shit. For example, those tests where you find out what reading age something is written for, found The Sun was adequate for a 7 year old (minus the page 3 girl). The Daily Fail has a song about how bad it is, and as far as they're concerned everything causes cancer and mass immigration and the country is going to shit. The next step up of papers has strong bias towards particular political parties. Then there's a large gap and then the BBC at the top which is pretty damn decent. There's a knock on effect though so even the BBC gets some of the shit (some deservedly, it's far from infallible). Peoples confidence in news sources gets destroyed from the ground up but then even worse, some people believe that crap from the bottom which compounds the effect.
I don't trust Wikipedia. I trust the sources it provides given that I can follow up and find that the transferred information is true to the source. In general, though, after Wikipedia did its rework to restrict the ability of people to senselessly change articles on a whim (not eliminate it of course but), it serves as a pretty fair information source for your most basic knowledge on a topic.
Do we trust a biased news outlet with many journalists talking about many subjects they know little about, or do we trust a website that can be to some extent be edited by anyone, but is typically on the whole written by experts containing accurate data? News outlets are always out to influence you, and they don't always know what they are talking about.
As far as the BBC is concerned they are low on the bullshit list, near or at the bottom and spout a lot less bullshit than others but they are still on that list. As far as being used as an influential tool is concerned though the BBC is right at the very top of all of them in the UK.
Wikipedia is just a library of information.
Probably running on a Pentium 4
being sourced is good but not a true measure of accuracy because its routine to use lies of omission. they simply refuse to report both or alll views, thereby inferring a lie. being sourced does not protect you from this or other fallacies like the false dilemma.
take for example the daily show or colbert report. youd think these are the top political commentary satire shows in the nation. but in truth, rush limbaugh dwarfs them in ratings. the media simply refuses to report it, using lies of omisson, with the goal of people inferring that colbert and the daily show are number 1.
Time...line? Time isn't made out of lines. It is made out of circles. That is why clocks are round. ~ Caboose