Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' source

[Dave]

That was the title of an article in The Guardian..

Wikipedia editors have voted to ban the Daily Mail as a source for the website in all but exceptional circumstances after deeming the news group "generally unreliable". [...] The editors described the arguments for a ban as "centred on the Daily Mail's reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism and flat-out fabrication".

I am not surprised.

[Recusant]

The Daily Mail "banned" Wikipedia years ago, according to the article.

A spokesman for Mail Newspapers said that only a tiny portion of the site's millions of anonymous editors had been involved in the decision, adding: 'It is hard to know whether to laugh or cry at this move by Wikipedia. For the record the Daily Mail banned all its journalists from using Wikipedia as a sole source in 2014 because of its unreliability."

His other comment was spurious, and typical Mailspeak which I think was aimed at its devoted readership rather than the public in general.

"All those people who believe in freedom of expression should be profoundly concerned at this cynical politically motivated attempt to stifle the free press."

As if Wikipedia were attempting to stifle the free press. Reminds me a bit of Christians in the US who rage about how the government is repressing them.

[Dave]

I use Wikipedia a lot but, if it is serious stuff I use them for a source of links onwards.

In college I tried for three confirming but independant sources. Difficult.

Got a Wiki editing account somewhere, some berk made a dog's dinner of the history of this village.

[Dave]

The Daily Mail "banned" Wikipedia years ago, according to the article.

[...] For the record the Daily Mail banned all its journalists from using Wikipedia as a sole source in 2014 because of its unreliability."

Hmm, just came to me, "... its unreliability in not offering facts that match the stories we want to tell"?

[Davin]

WikiPedia isn't a good source. But I find very useful as a starting point, because they list a lot of good, reliable sources.

WikiPedia dropping the Daily Mail as a reliable source makes sense for them.

The Daily Mail dropping WikiPedia as a source doesn't make sense, because it should never have been one in the first place. Maybe the Daily Mail relying on unreliable sources is the reason they are unreliable?