Wikipedia bans the Daily Mail as a source for being 'unreliable'

[bigheadfred]

Wikipedia editors have said they will no longer accept links to Daily Mail stories to support citations because it is too unreliable.

A fiery debate on its suitability as a source ended with a consensus view that the Mail, and Mail Online, were "generally unreliable" and their use "is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist".

The statement added: "The general themes of the support votes centred on the Daily Mail's reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication."

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/wikipedia-editors-ban-daily-mail-source-citation-unreliable-mail-online-a7570856.html

[jmyrlefuller]

I think, a while back, we here came to a similar conclusion that they're kind of sketchy.

[bigheadfred]

I think, a while back, we here came to a similar conclusion that they're kind of sketchy.

I think it was @EC that pointed to that. Daily Mail and DailyMail Online?

[Cripplecreek]

Wikipedia is "kind of unreliable" for anything even remotely political.

[Suppressed]

Always remember, Wikipedia explicitly states that "referenced" trumps "true".

[EC]

I think it was @EC that pointed to that. Daily Mail and DailyMail Online?

Mail is a sensationalist and alarmist plagiarizing tabloid.

MailOnline is a clickbaity bullshit factory.

Unfortunately, unless you look closely at the byline (and no one does) it's impossible to tell at a glance which site you are on.

[geronl]

Just remember that using Wikipedia as a source in a college paper is normally an automatic fail.

[bigheadfred]

Just remember that using Wikipedia as a source in a college paper is normally an automatic fail.

Is that because the perfessers use Wiki as a syllabus?

[jmyrlefuller]

Just remember that using Wikipedia as a source in a college paper is normally an automatic fail.

That's why you go to the sources WITHIN the Wikipedia article in question as a starting point.

I actually edit quite a bit over there. Nothing political, mostly sports and entertainment stuff.

[EC]

That's why you go to the sources WITHIN the Wikipedia article in question as a starting point.

I actually edit quite a bit over there. Nothing political, mostly sports and entertainment stuff.

Agreed - the sources are an invaluable starting point for looking into something. Unfortunately, for me footnotes and citations are much like TVTropes. A rabbit hole that gets deeper and deeper until you are reading about the raising of wheat in ancient Mesopotamia when you were meant to be finding out the origin of the word bollocks. (That actually happened.  )