Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!


If you can read this message, please contact us immediately at the following email address:

We'd like to communicate.


(1) Please swing by our "HELP CENTER" to view our forum rules prior to posting or commenting.
(2) Acknowledge that by commenting or posting, you take full responsibility for the content and message of the information you put forth, which does not necessarily reflect the opinions of this website.
(3) If you ever need assistance, simply contact one of the staff or send us an email and we'll be glad to help.

Wikipedia Bans Daily Mail as Article Source Citing Unreliability

Wikipedia editors have said they will no longer accept links to Daily Mail stories to support citations because it is too unreliable.

A fiery debate on its suitability as a source ended with a consensus view that the Mail, and Mail Online, were "generally unreliable" and their use "is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist".

The statement added: "The general themes of the support votes centred on the Daily Mail's reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication."

One person in favour of the ban said: "It's just a mouthpiece for Paul Dacre & I remove it on sight."

But others were strongly opposed to the move.

User The Four Deuces said: "Editors are supposed to always use judgment when choosing sources. Usually the broadsheets are better than the tabloids but there are circumstances when tabloids provide better coverage such as sports and crime. And if we exclude the Mail, there are a lot of other publications of lower quality that would still be considered reliable."


  • GrumpyGuyGrumpyGuy Member
    edited February 10
    The idea for editors to use judgment when selecting sources strikes me as the best way to go, rather than flat-out banning an entire potential source.

    It's true that The Daily Mail is mostly a click-bait generator, but that doesn't make it impossible that they might report the occasional truth.

    Interestingly, The Independent, from which I sourced this post, is also considered by many to be an unreliable click-bait website.  In spite of that, they also have the occasional real article with real information (like this one).

    As always, it remains best for individuals to filter things with their minds.

    PS - in case anyone is unfamiliar with the term "click-bait," it refers to the type of article put together primarily to draw visitors to a website (and thus increase advertising profits).  Sites that publish a lot of "Top 10" lists are among such sites.  Since the purpose is to draw visitors and not to educate or inform, fact-checking is minimal at best and sensationalism and "newstainment" are the norm.
  • Matt_ADMIN_Matt_ADMIN_ Administrator
    I agree in that it's probably better to make a decision case by case, otherwise they risk missing out on something in the event that DM stops being a propaganda rag full of bikinis
    "...Say, 'GOD is sufficient for me.' In Him the trusters shall trust." (Quran 39:38)
  • What's wrong with bikinis?

    If the politicians treat people this poorly when they're armed to the teeth,

    just imagine what they'll be willing to do once they've disarmed everyone.

  • #bikinis might distract the viewer from #realnews

    "We are shaped by our thoughts; we become what we think. When the mind is pure, joy follows like a shadow that never leaves."

Sign In or Register to comment.