Wikipedia editors ban 'unreliable' Daily Mail as source

Wikipedia says The Daily Mail and its website are "unreliable" as news sources
Wikipedia says The Daily Mail and its website are "unreliable" as news sources

Wikipedia editors have voted to ban the use of articles from British tabloid The Daily Mail and its globally popular website as sources, calling them "unreliable", according to a statement.

English-language of the cited the newspaper's "reputation for poor fact-checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication", said the statement posted on Wikipedia Wednesday.

The vote means the tabloid's use as a reference should be "generally prohibited", it said.

The Wikimedia Foundation, the not-for-profit organisation that runs the Wikipedia website, acknowledged the vote in a statement cited in The Guardian, but said it was up to its unpaid editors.

From now on, it said "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 National Enquirer, a US tabloid, is the only news publication that "should never be used", according to editors' guidelines.

Content on Wikipedia is written and edited by a global network of volunteers who must base their articles on "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".

The guidelines also highlight that special care should be taken when sourcing from state-associated news organisations, including the Chinese press agency Xinhua, North Korea's Korean Central News Agency, and Press TV in Iran.

They warn they may be propaganda organisations, but do not outwardly ban them.

The Daily Mail's reliability had been the subject of debate among Wikipedia editors since January 2015.

Some opponents of the move argued that "singling out one source does not deal with the other poor sources that are currently permitted", and that historically the British tabloid may have been accurate.

The Daily Mail, Britain's second biggest-selling daily newspaper, has previously been accused of racism, sensationalism and inaccuracies.

Its online operation, MailOnline, is considered to be the world's largest English speaking newspaper website with 24.5 million monthly unique visitors.

The group did not immediately respond to AFP requests for comment.

Explore further

Craigslist founder donates $500K to curb Wikipedia trolls

© 2017 AFP

Citation: Wikipedia editors ban 'unreliable' Daily Mail as source (2017, February 9) retrieved 25 May 2019 from
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.

Feedback to editors

User comments

Feb 13, 2017
So glad to hear this. I witnessed an event that DailyMail did a story on, and they over exaggerated and misprinted the entire story that I witnessed with my own eyes. I was at a club with a person that was in a car wreck the next day and DailyMail said that the person was in a car wreck after leaving the same club. Only thing is, the club closed the night before, an entire 14 hours before the person was in a wreck and DailyMail wanted to spice up the story to make it seem like there was alcohol or partying involved. The person went home and the club was still closed from the night before at the time of the accident. Sure, the person was in a car wreck after they left the club, but 14 hours after shouldn't count. That is the equivalent of saying someone was in a car wreck after they were born. They are exaggerators!

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more