The decision was taken after a debate amongst Wikipedia editors over the last month.
The Daily Mail has been banned as a source in Wikipedia articles after the online encyclopedia’s editors found that it was “generally unreliable” and because of its reputation for “poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication”.
A proposal was made by Wikipedia editor Hillbillyholiday last month to prohibit the use of the Daily Mail as a source in Wikipedia articles and has been the subject of (very lengthy and thorough) debate amongst Wikipedia editors for the last month.
In the end, according to Wikipedia reliable sources/noticeboard, “consensus has determined that the Daily Mail (including its online version, dailymail.co.uk) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist”.
Gary Lineker, for example, is just one of a number of high-profile figures to have taken issue with the Daily Mail’s coverage in recent times.
Outrageously misleading headline @DailyMailUK . Was talking divorce legal costs in general not my personal situation pic.twitter.com/13NsHXIZZ7
— Gary Lineker (@GaryLineker) April 25, 2016
Editors who supported prohibiting the Daily Mail as a source pointed to the papers “reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication” and provided examples to back up those claims.
Those who opposed it, meanwhile, made three main arguments, which can be explored in more detail here.
The Daily Mail is still likely to appear on Wikipedia articles – in an article about the Daily Mail, for example, or when a link is believed to be absolutely necessary – but editors will be encouraged to find alternative sources and volunteers have been asked to review thousands of existing citations and remove/replace them where appropriate.
