'Wikipedia' Bans Using Daily Mail As A Source For Information: Calls Online Publication "Unreliable"
"Wikipedia" has banned their editors to use Daily Mail as the source of reporting. The online encyclopedia notes that Daily Mail is unreliable.
According to a report, the decision from "Wikipedia" comes from years of debate for Daily Mail's unreliable reporting. The decision also came from the online publication's poor fact checking, sensationalisation and flat-out fabrication of reports.
The result of the decision from editors of "Wikipedia" is to prohibit any reference to Daily Mail. There are other much reliable sources that can be used by the online encyclopedia for any information. The editors further suggest to writers to use an "edit filter" so to avoid getting unreliable sources.
"Wikipedia's" editors that are opposed to using Daily Mail as a resource for information indicate that the debate started out way back 2015. This is rare for "Wikipedia" since anybody can edit an article. However, the decision comes from a majority of editors that Daily Mail is an unreliable source.
The report indicates that "Wikipedia" prohibits the use of Daily Mail for getting factual information. There is no intention of outright blacklisting but appropriate measures should be done in order to disseminate relevant information.
Meanwhile, a report indicates that Daily Mail has been a leading paper in the UK. The ratings for the publication rose higher when it comes to digital news. It also has been the largest news organization online. The online publication has a vast readership and is popular online.
The decision that the Wikipedia editors came up to ban resourcing to Daily Mail has been open and deliberate. This also opens the idea for Wikipedia to look into other sources since there may be some that are giving out unreliable information.
As of this time, there has been no comment from the Daily Mail that has been given. Wikipedia also has the list of reasons on why Daily Mail has been decided upon as unreliable.
