In many quarters Wikipedia is not looked on as reliable either. It does not do Wikipedia any good to make such comments.
Cheers
Guy
Quite on the contrary, Guy, it does.
All Wikipedia articles are referenced and sourced. The references and sources are there at the bottom of each page. Readers are encouraged to check the sources for themselves. No opinions, no secret whisperings, no dirty deals done in low dives - everything is aboveboard and open to scrutiny.
If an article is found to be in error, it can be changed and swiftly. The trouble is, readers see something with which they disagree and dismiss the whole of Wikipedia on the strength of their opinion. "I remember when I was a lad", or "My dad said", or "Everybody knows" are not references and are not verifiable.
The whole of the British Press has gone down hill and quite swiftly. There was a time, not that long ago, when The Times was known as "The Newspaper of Record". That is to say, if it was in The Times, it was accurate, factual and the truth. Those days are gone. It, like the rest of the press, has given up truth for sensationalism.
Whereas most newspapers are quite obvious about their bias, the DM and the MoS is insidious. If a person travels to South Africa, they would expect to see coloured people. They don't need to be told in the Lifestyle or Travel Section "You will find black people on every street corner".
In my not inconsiderable Wikipedia editing experience, I have found that the only people who defend the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday are their readers.
Regards
Chas
