【】as a source only in limited situations.
我要评论Prepare yourself for less celebrity gossip on Wikipedia. 。
Editors for the site (who are all volunteers) voted Wednesday to almost entirely ban the British tabloid newspaper the 。Daily Mail 。as a source, calling the publication "generally unreliable." 。
SEE ALSO:Early newspaper editions could not keep up with that legendary Super Bowl ending 。The 。 Daily Mail 。's reliability has been a point of contention on the user-edited encyclopedia site since 2015 if not earlier. But discussion about its efficacy as a source was revived in early January when one user led the campaign against the。 Daily Mail 。Daily Mail。
. 。
Editor Hillbillyholiday argued during a discussion that the outlet is untrustworthy for science-related stories, inappropriately posts photos of children and has limited credibility even with direct quotes and interviews. 。 Those opposed could not support a blanket banning but agreed on a comprise: to use the 。Those opposed could not support a blanket banning but agreed on a comprise: to use the 。
By signing up you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. 。 By signing up you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. 。Thanks for signing up! 。
One user commented with a "strong oppose" comment that "The 。Daily Mail 。
, as hated as it is, is a very mixed bag. It can contain wonderful information such as accurate and informative interviews with highly respected people." 。 The Daily Mail was dragged through the mud on a Wikipedia discussion about its reliability.Credit: Steve Meddle/REX/Shutterstock 。 Ultimately, though, the news outlet has been effectively banned as a source, due to its "reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication." 。
The Wikimedia Foundation, who runs the main Wiki site, pointed out that the outlet isn't fully banned -- its use as a reference is just "generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist.” But the key takeaway is that the 。 Daily Mail。Daily Mail 。
is no longer a go-to reliable source for citing something on a page. 。 The ruling does not mean the 。Mail 。 can never be used as a source, but editors are being encouraged to change information that cites the publication to a different source. 。 The 。 Mail。joins the 。 National Enquirer 。among the few outlets that Wikipedia has called out in particular. 。
The Sun 。
and the 。
Daily Mirror 。
are also seen as unreliable. Wikipedia also warns against using state-run media like China's Xinhua or Iran's Press TV as sources. 。Additional reporting by Jason Abbruzzese.。Featured Video For You 。Even Fox News is defending CNN against Trump 。
相关文章
5 people Tim Cook calls for advice on running the biggest company in the world
It's only fitting that the leader of the biggest company in the world has a pretty impressive list o2025-10-31
The internet is deeply inspired by this man who brought 30 gallons of frosting on the bus
We don't know who he is. We don't know what his secrets are. But we do know that he is a hero among2025-10-31
Frog scares the crap out of dog and 2 humans, doggo goes back for toy
A really good scare can send anyone running for the hills, even good dogs. Mike, his dog Lucky, and2025-10-31
Canada's Kobo, one of the few companies besides Amazon that have a healthy lineup of e-readers, has2025-10-31U.S. government issues warning on McDonald's recalled wearable devices
Last week's McDonald's debacle, which saw the fast food giant forced to recall its first wearable tr2025-10-31
Barbershop Books is using barbershops to inspire young black boys to read
Sometimes a book is just a hobby, a fun way to consume a new story. But sometimes a book is a powerf2025-10-31
最新评论