Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
In the 2017 RfC, the Daily Mail was the first source to be deprecated on Wikipedia, and the decision was challenged and reaffirmed in the 2019 RfC. There is consensus that the Daily Mail (including its online version, MailOnline ) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is generally prohibited, especially when other sources exist ...
The Daily Mail may be used in rare cases in an about-self fashion. Some editors regard the Daily Mail as reliable historically, so old articles may be used in a historical context. (Note that dailymail.co.uk is not trustworthy as a source of past content that was printed in the Daily Mail.)
In February 2017, pursuant to a formal community discussion, editors on the English Wikipedia banned the use of the Daily Mail as a source in most cases. [25] [26] [27] Its use as a reference is now "generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist", [17] [25] [249] and it can no longer be used as proof of notability. [25]
The Daily Mail responded, quoted first in a Press Gazette story (February 10). The response rambled from one point to another, stating that the Daily Mail had banned Wikipedia as a source in 2014 (and why not before?), mocking the editor who initiated the RFC, and suggesting procedural problems in the decision.
Fact Check: Social media users are claiming that the Daily Mail, a British news outlet, published an article that claims Graham is a pedophile. The caption reads, “It’s over for Lindsey Graham.”
The bottom line is: the Daily Mail is not reliable. It should not be used as a reliable source. Some people in this argument bring up public trust or distrust; this is not relevant because facts are not the same as public opinion. The Daily Mail has done a good job of hoodwinking its audience into believing its crackpot hoaxes are good ...
A Disney rep initially told The Daily Beast that “the photos are fake and not from our production” but later said the snaps were from the real set but not “official.” The Daily Mail, ...
A Daily Mail RfC in January 2017 reached a consensus to severely limit its use by editors for citations. The Daily Mail was deemed to be an unreliable source for many good reasons. In an article with an impossibly long title for the Daily Mail , Guy Adams says Wikipedia has totally "banned" the newspaper from this site. [ 1 ]