Wikipedia says Daily Mail an unreliable source, bans editors from citing it as reference
The editors of online encyclopedia said the use of Daily Mail content �is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist"
Wikipedia editors have reportedly decided to stop citing the Daily Mail as a source for information saying that the news website is an ‘unreliable' source.
The editors of online encyclopedia said the use of Daily Mail content “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,” the Wikimedia Foundation said in a statement.
“This is consistent with how Wikipedia editors evaluate and use media outlets in general – with common sense and caution,” it added.
The proposal to restrict Daily Mail sources was taken by an editor known as Hillbillyholiday early this year and the fellow editors was engaged in arguments for and against the ban later, The Guardian reported.
Reports said the editors opposed the ban claimed the Daily Mail was sometimes reliable and there were other publications that were also unreliable.
Others argued that "the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles. An edit filter should be put in place, going forward to warn editors attempting to use the Daily Mail as a reference."
Recently, the Daily Mail faced criticism after it published a ‘fake’ report alleging that researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) manipulated global warming data to back the Paris climate agreement.
However, many critics later said the findings from the NOAA report have been verified and there has been no slowdown in the rate of global warming.