Wikipedia Bans Daily Mail As 'Unreliable' Source (theguardian.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from 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 move is highly unusual for the online encyclopaedia, which rarely puts in place a blanket ban on publications and which still allows links to sources such as Kremlin backed news organization Russia Today, and Fox News, both of which have raised concern among editors. The editors described the arguments for a ban as "centered on the Daily Mail's reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism and flat-out fabrication." The Wikimedia Foundation, which runs Wikipedia but does not control its editing processes, said in a statement that volunteer editors on English Wikipedia had discussed the reliability of the Mail since at least early 2015. It said: "Based on the requests for comments section [on the reliable sources noticeboard], volunteer editors on English Wikipedia have come to a consensus that the Daily Mail is 'generally unreliable and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. This means that 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. This is consistent with how Wikipedia editors evaluate and use media outlets in general -- with common sense and caution."

Comments

Re:Censorship.

[Fragnet]

I would agree with you if wikipedia held other news outlets to the same standard.

Re:Censorship.

[MightyMartian]

There's a delightful exchange from Yes Minister that, while reflecting the major British papers as they were in the late 70s and early 80s, is still relatively true today:

Sir Humphrey: The only way to understand the Press is to remember that they pander to their readers' prejudices.

Jim Hacker: Don't tell me about the Press. I know *exactly* who reads the papers. The Daily Mirror is read by the people who think they run the country. The Guardian is read by people who think they *ought* to run the country. The Times is read by the people who actually *do* run the country. The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country. The Financial Times is read by people who *own* the country. The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by *another* country. The Daily Telegraph is read by the people who think it is.

Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?

Bernard Woolley: Sun readers don't care *who* runs the country - as long as she's got big tits.

Re:Censorship.

[Anonymous Coward]

The Daily Mail actually has some very competent, very tenacious, not to mention ruthless, investigative journalists. It's not uncommon for them to break stories of real consequence.

The editorial spin that gets put on them, that's another matter. And their choice of subject matter is often open to question. But the journalism itself is some of the best you'll find, and I find it a sad comment on the state of Wikipedia that its politburo doesn't recognise that.

Re:Anchor admits to lies on RT

[PrimaryConsult]

That's quite interesting, though the anchor did not reveal anything I did not already suspect. With RT you know what you get - news with an extra helping of bias, just like everyone else. It's actually easier to see through RT's because the bias is focused on Russian interests, but everyone does it. Fox's is deeply conservative, CNN's is deeply liberal, and BBC is close to neutral but still very western-slanted. The best approach is to read / watch news from different sources and form opinions then, especially while keeping in mind the biases of each one. For internet news I cycle through CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, BBC, the Sydney Morning Herald, the Straits Times, Asahi Shimbun, and yes RT.

My complaint is the way the original article threw "Kremlin backed" out there, as if that were unusual. BBC is backed by the British and Al Jazeera is backed by Qatar. Yet the same people who decry RT espouse these two as bastions of truth. While I do trust BBC more than the average US-based news site and certainly over RT and Al J, I recognize that is an opinion shaped by being Western rather than some magical knowledge. Both sides of US media bought the "we have proof Saddam has WMDs!!" rhetoric hook line and sinker for years. Either they suck at their job or pressure was put on to avoid digging into that.

Re:Censorship.

[AmiMoJo]

The Daily Mail is the exactly opposite of what you describe. A typical story starts with several paragraphs of reaction and outrage, before right at the end on page 7 mentioning the facts.

Here's a classic example: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/hea...

Note how even in the byline they manage to sneak a lie in (the straight banana law was debunked when it first surfaced in the 90s). If you can wade through all the ranting you will find a perfectly sensible, rational explanation for the ruling.

That's why the Daily Fail has been banned. It's not a serious source of news, it's a source of outrage and vitriol. Almost entirely fact free, virtually pure opinion (so long as it's the opinion of people who are angry, or who you should be angry about not being angry).