The online encyclopedia Wikipedia, will no longer use stories published by the Daily Mail as a source, citation, or proof of notability.
Wikipedia editors have decided that the Daily Mail is too “unreliable” because of “poor fact checking, sensationalism and flat-out fabrication.”
BYPASS THE CENSORS
Sign up to get unfiltered news delivered straight to your inbox.
The Daily Mail in London, edited by Paul Dacre, and its online publication, MailOnline is “generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist,” according to a summary discussion posted by Wikipedia.
“As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles,” the decision on the site also read.
David Cameron did nothing good in 6 years. He couldn’t even complete the only good idea he has which was to get Paul Dacre sacked.
— Krishan (@krishan_dave) 31 January 2017
It’s removal as a “reliable source” from Wikipedia is due to its “poor fact-checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication.”
— Ed Hunter (@EdwardJWHunter) 8 February 2017
— Amy Lowther (@Aimsa_1985) 14 October 2015
Many social media users, especially on Twitter, are enjoying the opportunity to either stick the boot in or mock the tabloid newspaper following the announcement by Wikipedia. Former Prime Minister Tony Blair’s spin doctor, Alastair Campbell is no exception.
— Alastair Campbell (@campbellclaret) 9 February 2017
Online paper Huffington Post UK has published examples that led to the decision to remove the tabloid from the open source website.
— Craig J Parker (@sparxinleeds) 9 February 2017
In one instance, the Mail Online published the wrong verdict in the case of Amanda Knox, declaring her as guilty, despite the fact that she was found not guilty. The fake verdict was live on the website for 90 seconds and carried quotes suggesting Knox “looked stunned” by the verdict.
Footballer Paul Pogba was forced to issue a statement on Twitter after the Daily Mail website published a fake article in which he “describes life at Manchester United.” Pogba had never agreed to such an interview.
— Paul Pogba (@paulpogba) 6 November 2016
Actor George Clooney issued a statement in 2014, after the tabloid suggested “religious tensions” existed between him and his wife Amal Clooney’s mother.
“The Daily Mail has printed a completely fabricated story about my fiancee’s mother opposing our marriage for religious reasons, none of the story is factually true,” Clooney wrote in USA Today.
Wikimedia UK, which trains Wikipedia editors, told The Huffington Post UK that it was a “community decision” to ban the Mail.
“Essentially it’s a community decision and a decision which the English Wikipedia editor community has taken and actually this was first discussed as an issue back in 2015,” Lucy Crompton-Reid, chief executive of Wikimedia UK said.
“It is the community that’s come to a consensus decision that the Daily Mail can’t be used as a reliable source on Wikipedia. That will affect some 12,000 links, but obviously they won’t be changed overnight,” she added.
The ban means editors of the online encyclopedia will be asked to find alternative sources when the Wikipedia entry relates to the newspaper or one of its writers.
— Wikipedia (@Wikipedia) 21 January 2017
Turning to Wikipedia as a source for this story, the latest entry on the online encyclopedia for the Daily Mail says the tabloid: “has been accused of racism, and printing sensationalist and inaccurate scare stories of science and medical research.”
Latest posts by Edmondo Burr (see all)
- Police Arrest Suspect In Supermarket Baby Food Poisoning - October 1, 2017
- Seoul Secures Data From Electromagnetic Interference By N Korea - September 30, 2017
- The ‘World’s First Internet War’ Has Begun: Julian Assange - September 30, 2017