Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
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. [24] [25] [26] Its use as a reference is now "generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist", [16] [24] [248] and it can no longer be used as proof of notability. [24]
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.)
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 ...
Perennial sources Source Status Discussions Use List Last Summary Occupy Democrats (Washington Press) 2018 2018 2023 2020 2023. 2018 In the 2018 RfC, there was clear consensus to deprecate Occupy Democrats as a source à la the Daily Mail. This does not mean it cannot ever be used on Wikipedia; it means it cannot be used as a reference for facts.
MailOnline (also known as dailymail.co.uk and dailymail.com outside the UK) is the website of the Daily Mail, a tabloid newspaper in the United Kingdom, and of its sister paper The Mail on Sunday. MailOnline is a division of dmg media, which is owned by Daily Mail and General Trust plc.
Make no mistake, The Daily Mail is a bad source. But in the realm of mass media, most sources of the junk food news variety seem very bad. And these can be published by supposedly reliable news outlets. I would much rather see this more firmly clarified in policy. The Daily Mail is a bad source, and everybody knows it. But other outlets, even ...
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.)
To match reliable sources, the word "ban" should be used in article space to describe the Wikipedia community's relationship with the Daily Mail where appropriate. However, this discussion is in project space, and the word "ban" is inconsistent with how the Daily Mail RfC was closed.