Why Wikipedia has Placed a Near-Total Ban on Daily Mail Citations Due to “Poor Fact Checking”

Wikipedia, the widely recognized and commonly used online encyclopedia, is known for accepting a broad spectrum of publications as sources for referencing. However, it has recently taken a surprisingly public stance about banning a particular source. The source in question is the British tabloid, Daily Mail. The Wikipedia editors have taken the unprecedented step of issuing a near-total ban on the use of the Daily Mail as a source citing its “poor fact checking, sensationalism and flat-out fabrication history”.

Upon browsing the “requests for comments” section of the reliable sources noticeboard, it becomes evident that the volunteer editors of the English Wikipedia have reached a consensus. They collectively deem the Daily Mail as ‘generally unreliable’, and its references broadly disallowed, especially when there are plenty of much more reliable sources available.

The consensus extends to Daily Mail’s online platform, dailymail.co.uk. Its general unreliability disqualifies it from being used as a reference, particularly when alternative credible sources exist. Consequently, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining the notability of a topic, nor should it be cited in articles. An edit filter will be implemented moving forward to caution editors who attempt to utilize the Daily Mail as a reference.

However, the ban is not absolute. The more accurate stories, according to the judgment of the Wikipedia editors, will still be allowed. This means that articles that mention Daily Mail as a company or cite its journalists may be tolerated. At the same time, Wikipedia editors will be encouraged to replace approximately 12,000 existing Daily Mail links.

Fellow British news organization, The Guardian, has described this move as highly unusual, particularly for a website that relies heavily on information from various sources. The decision to outlaw the Daily Mail’s contributions was not made impulsively. Wikipedia has been questioning the reliability of the tabloid since 2015, but only felt compelled to take action now after a series of thorough reviews.

This incident may serve as a precedent for large-scale reassessment of sources. Other biased publications, especially state-sponsored media outlets, may face similar treatment by Wikipedia despite the platform expressing openness to debating the reliability of questionable sources.

Digital giants such as Facebook and Google have recently taken steps to battle the ongoing fake news epidemic. This trending issue many believe is leading to a surge in populist agendas globally. Both Google and Facebook have partnered to combat fake news ahead of the French Presidential elections in April, while Germany is taking measures to restrict the dissemination of fake news within the nation.