Daily Mail Is Unreliable Source According To Wikipedia

Daily Mail Is Unreliable Source According To Wikipedia PHOTOGRAPH: Geralt/Pixabay | Under Public Domain

After much debate, Wikipedia tagged Daily Mail an “unreliable source”. As long as there are better alternatives out there, Wikipedia will avoid citing Mail or Mail Online. This decision came as a surprise since Wikipedia has never placed a blanket ban on a publication before.

Is Daily Mail Fake News?

It is highly unusual for Wikipedia to completely prohibit citations from a particular publication; specially one like Daily Mail, which is one of the most popular tabloids around. Publications like Russia Today, and Fox News for one are known to be backed by the Kremlin. But Wikipedia still allows citations of stories from these sites.

While some think that Wikipedia’s decision might be influenced by President Donald Trump waging a war against fake news, the standard of news published by Daily Mail has been entangled in controversy since 2015, reported The Guardian. However, it was only recently that content from the particular site has been deemed unacceptable. Wikipedia explained their decision in a statement which said, “The general themes of the support votes centered on the Daily Mail’s reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication.”

Daily Mail Loyalists Rally Against Wikipedia

To implement the new rule, Wikipedia has called upon its volunteers. They are to sweep all Wikipedia pages and take down any citations from Daily Mail. This has led to many questioning Wikipedia’s sudden ban of their favorite publication.

Some have opined that Wikipedia cannot be biased against Daily Mail .They stated that if it decided to ban Daily Mail, it also have to ban a number of other tabloids similar to Daily Mail. “Usually the broadsheets are better than the tabloids but there are circumstances when tabloids provide better coverage such as sports and crime,” stated one argument, reported Independent.

Moreover, “Bashing the Mail is fun, and it doesn’t look as if anyone disagrees much that it is best avoided, but that there will possibly be rare occasions when it will be a good source, given the context,” opined another. However, Wikipedia editors had a fitting reply to this claim from Daily Mail fans. According them, any reliable story which appears on the Mail, will undoubtedly be covered by other publications. Among them will be sites which do not carry the stigma of Daily Mail. As such, Wikipedia will choose to cite those websites as posed to Daily Mail when it comes to referencing that particular story.

Read Also:Andrey Melnichenko Net Worth, Wife Aleksandra: Facts About Billionaire Who now Owns World’s Most Futuristic Yacht