Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Wikipedia The Internet News Technology

Wikipedia Bans Daily Mail As 'Unreliable' Source ( 405

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Wikipedia editors have voted to ban the Daily Mail as a source for the website in all but exceptional circumstances after deeming the news group "generally unreliable." The move is highly unusual for the online encyclopaedia, which rarely puts in place a blanket ban on publications and which still allows links to sources such as Kremlin backed news organization Russia Today, and Fox News, both of which have raised concern among editors. The editors described the arguments for a ban as "centered on the Daily Mail's reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism and flat-out fabrication." The Wikimedia Foundation, which runs Wikipedia but does not control its editing processes, said in a statement that volunteer editors on English Wikipedia had discussed the reliability of the Mail since at least early 2015. It said: "Based on the requests for comments section [on the reliable sources noticeboard], volunteer editors on English Wikipedia have come to a consensus that the Daily Mail is 'generally unreliable and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. This means that the Daily Mail will generally not be referenced as a 'reliable source' on English Wikipedia, and volunteer editors are encouraged to change existing citations to the Daily Mail to another source deemed reliable by the community. This is consistent with how Wikipedia editors evaluate and use media outlets in general -- with common sense and caution."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Wikipedia Bans Daily Mail As 'Unreliable' Source

Comments Filter:
  • Not undeserved. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Going_Digital ( 1485615 ) on Wednesday February 08, 2017 @07:55PM (#53829643)
    The Daily Mail has always been an absolute dreadful comic, calling it a newspaper is just wrong as it is nothing more than sensationalized fiction.
    • Perfect timing (Score:2, Insightful)

      by rmdingler ( 1955220 )
      Blanket bans of sources considered poor news sources is a slippery slope, a slippery slope I say!

      FD:I just posted a link to the Daily Mail in the last /. article.

      • by rtb61 ( 674572 )

        The opposite is also true. Blanket approval of sources is just as dangerous as blanket bans. No matter the source it should still be checked. Here is a subtle reason why, what if it is not actually from that source, should you not check that it is from the claimed source and you can do this whilst quickly checking the validity of the content itself. Keep in mind something can be from an approved source but not from that approved source at the same time ie janitor from a university is not the same as a profe

      • Re:Perfect timing (Score:5, Insightful)

        by mjwx ( 966435 ) on Thursday February 09, 2017 @09:04AM (#53831905)

        Blanket bans of sources considered poor news sources is a slippery slope, a slippery slope I say!

        FD:I just posted a link to the Daily Mail in the last /. article.

        And for that you should be ashamed.

        Also you should be ashamed for calling this censorship. Its not, it's a private organisation setting their own rules in their own house. You haven't been censored, you've been told that they think the Daily Mail is unreliable and full of falsehoods... which if you've read any decent news source is blindingly obvious.

        If the Daily Mail were to accidentally print something true and accurate, they would not be the only news source to do so. So in that regard, absolutely nothing is being hidden from you.

        Wikipedia wants to be considered a reliable reference site, this means they need to be mindful of their sources. The DM is known for deliberately printing lies, slander and well, crap. 90% of their stories are celebrity trash that would make E! blush, the other 9.99999999999999% are exaggerations or outright fabrications to suit the homophobic and racist tendencies of the owner.

        I consider the Daily Mail to be an unreliable and often, utterly incorrect source of information. I'll happily and openly state that I think anyone using it as a reference source is a complete Muppet who struggles to know which end of a spoon to hold... but I wont stop you from reading it, I'll just point out you're an idiot for doing so. That isn't censorship, if you're offended by it, thats your problem.

    • Re:Not undeserved. (Score:5, Informative)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) <> on Thursday February 09, 2017 @04:41AM (#53831391) Homepage Journal

      It's worse than that. The Sun is a comic for semi-literate grown-ups, but the Daily Mail is the newspaper equivellent of Nineteen Eighty Four's two minutes hate. The whole thing is designed as a mixture of rage inducing fabrications and milt titillation. Even the latter is irresponsible and damaging, featuring 14 year olds in bikinis and an endless stream of articles on how 5 year old celebrity children dress.

      This is the newspaper that call senior judges "enemies of the people" for upholding the law and requiring a vote in parliament on triggering Article 50 (the start of Brexit). In some ways it is even worse than Fox News. Like Brietbart they try to have an air of respectability, and unlike Brietbart their long history and wide readership seems to convey it.

  • Wait.... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by dohzer ( 867770 ) on Wednesday February 08, 2017 @08:05PM (#53829685) Homepage

    Wait... it has been used as a source EVER?! This is shocking news to me.

  • CNN? (Score:2, Insightful)

    CNN are just as bad as Fox News, each of them just have their own selective version of the truth.

  • by bogaboga ( 793279 ) on Wednesday February 08, 2017 @08:09PM (#53829703)

    ...which rarely puts in place a blanket ban on publications and which still allows links to sources such as Kremlin backed news organization Russia Today, and Fox News, both of which have raised concern among editors.

    Can one tell me where Russia Today has been wrong? I mean categorically wrong? I watch and listen to them regularly. They have been on the point in as far as I am concerned. I'd like to see some examples.

  • Lol they lump Fox in with RT but leave out one of the worst MSM sources CNN. CNN has shown time and time again to leave out key facts or just report plain out wrong or unverified information. But yea Fox and RT are the ones of concern ;)
  • Other the years a lot of different UK publications had to face the system of D-notices.
    Recall the D-notice affair [] and how hard UK publications had to work to get news out to the public?
    The publication of stories about Real IRA phone intercepts, news like
    German spies 'can't be trusted': Relations between the UK and Berlin intelligence chiefs hit after comments by London (16 December 2016) []
    All the work the paper did on the UK MP's expen
  • I will continue to support my Children's schools choice that Wikipedia is not an acceptable reference source.

  • This page had an ad for TMZ.

  • A comment extracted from The Independent - some years back: The correlation between Daily Mail stories and the truth, meanwhile, fails to reach statistical significance.
  • Wikipedia references a hell of a lot of sources that are unreliable. I am really into geopolitical events happening that are really relevant at the moment to our lives. I read a lot on the background of things in wikipedia and it's not bad but I have found plenty of politicisating of science (on controversial biological subjects its extremely hard for wikipedia not to stay neutral), plenty of revisionist history, etc. A lot of the historical sources, potentially even all cannot be well verified. This isn't
  • An Unreliable Source Bans Daily Mail As 'Unreliable' Source

"The eleventh commandment was `Thou Shalt Compute' or `Thou Shalt Not Compute' -- I forget which." -- Epigrams in Programming, ACM SIGPLAN Sept. 1982