The online encyclopedia Wikipedia, will no longer use stories published by the Daily Mail as a source, citation, or proof of notability. Wikipedia editors have decided that the Daily Mail is too “unreliable” because of “poor fact checking, sensationalism and flat-out fabrication.” Sputnik reports: The Daily Mail in London, edited by Paul Dacre, and its online publication, MailOnline is “generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist,” according to a summary discussion posted by Wikipedia. “As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles,” the decision on the site also read. David Cameron did nothing good in 6 years. He couldn’t even complete the only good idea he has which was to get Paul Dacre sacked. — Krishan (@krishan_dave) 31 January 2017 It’s removal as a “reliable source” from Wikipedia is due to its “poor fact-checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication.” There you have it, @DailyMailUK , @DailyMail & @DailyMailAU , Wikipedia has banned you, citing “sensationalism and flat-out fabrication”. — Ed Hunter (@EdwardJWHunter) 8 February 2017 If sensationalism is what you’re going for, you’re doing it right Daily Mail. #sticktothefacts #othersources #KUWTK pic.twitter.com/6IztmRmE2x — Amy Lowther [...]
The post Wikipedia Bans The Daily Mail As ‘Unreliable’ appeared first on Your News Wire.