Editing Daily Mail (section)

===Reliability===
The ''Daily Mail''{{'}}s medical and science journalism has been criticised by some doctors and scientists, accusing it of using minor studies to generate scare stories or being misleading.<ref name="Bad science">{{cite book|last1=Goldacre|first1=Ben|title=Bad science|date=2008|publisher=Fourth Estate|location=London|isbn=9780007240197}}<!-- can we add quotes and/or page numbers from this book? --></ref><ref name="The Daily Mail cancer story that torpedoes itself in paragraph 19">{{cite web|last1=Goldacre|first1=Ben|title=The Daily Mail cancer story that torpedoes itself in paragraph 19|url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/oct/16/ben-goldacre-bad-science-daily-mail-cancer|website=The Guardian|date=16 October 2010|access-date=1 August 2015|archive-date=22 October 2016|archive-url=https://archive.today/20161022122020/https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/oct/16/ben-goldacre-bad-science-daily-mail-cancer|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="NHS autism">{{cite web|url=https://www.nhs.uk/news/pregnancy-and-child/kids-grow-out-of-autism-claim-unfounded/|title='Kids grow out of autism' claim unfounded|author=[[National Health Service|NHS]]|date=22 February 2012|access-date=1 August 2020|quote=Can some children simply "grow out" of autism? The Daily Mail certainly thinks so, and today reported that new research by a "prestigious American university" claims that "not only is this possible, it's also common." The Mail's claim is misleading and may offer a false impression to the parents of children with autism.|archive-date=5 August 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200805135635/https://www.nhs.uk/news/pregnancy-and-child/kids-grow-out-of-autism-claim-unfounded/|url-status=dead}}</ref> In 2011, the ''Daily Mail'' published an article titled "Just ONE cannabis joint 'can cause psychiatric episodes similar to schizophrenia' as well as damaging memory".<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2053486/cannabis-joint-cause-psychiatric-episodes-similar-schizophrenia-damaging-memory.html|title=Just ONE cannabis joint 'can cause psychiatric episodes similar to schizophrenia' as well as damaging memory|first=Tamara|last=Cohen|date=25 October 2011|website=Mail Online|access-date=1 August 2020|archive-date=11 November 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201111210736/https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2053486/cannabis-joint-cause-psychiatric-episodes-similar-schizophrenia-damaging-memory.html|url-status=live}}</ref> Matt Jones, the lead author of the study that is cited in the article was quoted by [[Cannabis Law Reform]] as saying: "This study does NOT say that one spliff will bring on schizophrenia".<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.clear-uk.org/the-daily-mail-addicted-to-lies-and-misinformation-about-cannabis/|title=The Daily Mail – Addicted To Lies And Misinformation About Cannabis|author=[[Cannabis Law Reform]]|date=26 October 2011|access-date=1 August 2020|archive-date=29 July 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200729055018/http://www.clear-uk.org/the-daily-mail-addicted-to-lies-and-misinformation-about-cannabis/|url-status=live}}</ref>

[[Carbon Brief]] complained to the [[Press Complaints Commission]] about an article published in the ''Daily Mail'' titled "Hidden green tax in fuel bills: How a £200 stealth charge is slipped on to your gas and electricity bills" because the £200 figure was unexplained, unreferenced and, according to [[Office of Gas and Electricity Markets|Ofgem]], incorrect. The ''Daily Mail'' quietly removed the article from their website.<ref name="Daily Mail prints correction over GWPF green tax claims">{{cite web|url=https://www.carbonbrief.org/daily-mail-prints-correction-over-gwpf-green-tax-claims|title=Daily Mail prints correction over GWPF green tax claims|work=Carbon Brief |date=7 September 2011|access-date=1 August 2020|archive-date=9 August 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200809105919/https://www.carbonbrief.org/daily-mail-prints-correction-over-gwpf-green-tax-claims|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="daily mail confused">{{cite web|url=https://www.carbonbrief.org/daily-mail-confused-over-whether-green-tax-cost-is-85-or-300-as-mail-on-sunday-uses-gwpf-200-figure-despite-pcc-ruling|title=Daily Mail confused over whether 'green tax' cost is £85 or £300 as Mail on Sunday uses GWPF £200 figure despite PCC ruling|work=Carbon Brief |date=19 September 2011|access-date=1 August 2020|archive-date=9 August 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200809052336/https://www.carbonbrief.org/daily-mail-confused-over-whether-green-tax-cost-is-85-or-300-as-mail-on-sunday-uses-gwpf-200-figure-despite-pcc-ruling|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="Carbon Brief The Press Complaints Commission and the Daily Mail">{{cite web|url=https://www.carbonbrief.org/carbon-brief-the-press-complaints-commission-and-the-daily-mail|title=Carbon Brief The Press Complaints Commission and the Daily Mail|work=Carbon Brief |date=3 October 2011|access-date=1 August 2020|archive-date=9 August 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200809055816/https://www.carbonbrief.org/carbon-brief-the-press-complaints-commission-and-the-daily-mail|url-status=live |last1=Hunt |first1=Christian }}</ref>

In 2013, the [[Met Office]] criticised an article about climate change in the ''Daily Mail'' by [[James Delingpole]] for containing "a series of factual inaccuracies".<ref>{{cite web|url=https://blog.metoffice.gov.uk/2013/01/10/addressing-the-daily-mail-and-james-delingpoles-crazy-climate-change-obsession-article/|title=Addressing the Daily Mail and James Delingpole's 'crazy climate change obsession' article|author=Met Office Press Office|date=10 January 2013|access-date=1 August 2020|archive-date=9 August 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200809022242/https://blog.metoffice.gov.uk/2013/01/10/addressing-the-daily-mail-and-james-delingpoles-crazy-climate-change-obsession-article/|url-status=live}}</ref> The ''Daily Mail'' in response published a letter from the Met Office chairman on its letters page, as well as offering to append the letter to Delingpole's article.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://blog.metoffice.gov.uk/2013/03/08/setting-the-record-straight-in-the-daily-mail/|title=Setting the record straight in the Daily Mail|author=Met Office Press Office|newspaper=Official Blog of the Met Office News Team |date=8 March 2013|access-date=1 August 2020|archive-date=9 August 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200809062704/https://blog.metoffice.gov.uk/2013/03/08/setting-the-record-straight-in-the-daily-mail/|url-status=live}}</ref>

In August 2018, the ''Mail Online'' deleted a lengthy news article titled "Powder Keg Paris" by journalist Andrew Malone which focused on "illegal migrants" living in the Paris suburb of Saint Denis, after a string of apparent inaccuracies were highlighted on social media by French activist Marwan Muhammad, including mistaking Saint-Denis, the city, for [[Seine-Saint-Denis]], the department northeast of Paris. Local councillor Majid Messaoudene said that the article had set out to "stigmatise" and "harm" the area and its people. The journalist, Andrew Malone, subsequently deleted his Twitter account.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/aug/06/daily-mail-removes-powder-keg-paris-report-after-complaints|title=Daily Mail removes 'Powder Keg Paris' report after complaints|last=Waterson|first=Jim|date=6 August 2018|work=The Guardian|language=en|access-date=6 September 2018|archive-date=5 September 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180905204604/https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/aug/06/daily-mail-removes-powder-keg-paris-report-after-complaints|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/aug/06/daily-mail-removes-powder-keg-paris-report-after-complaints|title=Mail Online Deleted An Article About "Illegal Migrants" Overwhelming A Paris Suburb|last=Smith|first=Patrick|date=6 August 2018|work=The Guardian|language=en|access-date=6 September 2018|archive-date=5 September 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180905204604/https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/aug/06/daily-mail-removes-powder-keg-paris-report-after-complaints|url-status=live}}</ref> In 2019, the [[Independent Press Standards Organisation|IPSO]] ruled against the ''Daily Mail'' and confirmed in its ruling that the article was inaccurate.<ref name="IPSO rules against Daily Mail">{{cite web|url=https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/ipso-rules-against-daily-mail-in-powder-keg-paris-report-claiming-300000-illegal-migrants-lived-in-one-suburb/|title=IPSO rules against Daily Mail over report claiming 300,000 illegal migrants lived in one French suburb|author=Charlotte Tobitt|date=6 February 2019|access-date=1 August 2020|archive-date=9 August 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200809043355/https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/ipso-rules-against-daily-mail-in-powder-keg-paris-report-claiming-300000-illegal-migrants-lived-in-one-suburb/|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="IPSO ruling">{{cite web|url=https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/ruling/?id=05228-18|title=05228-18 Versi v Daily Mail|date=23 January 2019|access-date=1 August 2020|quote=Decision: Breach – sanction: action as offered by publication|archive-date=9 August 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200809100231/https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/ruling/?id=05228-18|url-status=live}}</ref>

In early 2019, the mobile version of the [[Microsoft Edge]] web browser started warning visitors to the MailOnline site, via its [[NewsGuard]] plugin, that "this website generally fails to maintain basic standards of accuracy and accountability" and "has been forced to pay damages in numerous high-profile cases".<ref>{{cite news |last1=Waterson |first1=Jim |title=Don't trust Daily Mail website, Microsoft browser warns users |url=https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/jan/23/dont-trust-daily-mail-website-microsoft-browser-warns-users |work=The Guardian |date=23 January 2019 |access-date=23 January 2019 |archive-date=23 January 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190123113408/https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/jan/23/dont-trust-daily-mail-website-microsoft-browser-warns-users |url-status=live }}</ref> In late January 2019, the status of the MailOnline was changed by the NewsGuard Plugin from Red to Green, updating its verdict to "this website generally maintains basic standards of accuracy and accountability". An Editor's Note from NewsGuard stated that "This label now has the benefit of the dailymail.co.uk's input and our view is that in some important respects their objections are right and we were wrong".<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/we-were-wrong-us-news-rating-tool-boosts-mail-online-trust-ranking-after-talks-with-unnamed-daily-mail-exec/|title='We were wrong': US news rating tool boosts Mail Online trust ranking after talks with unnamed Daily Mail exec|last=Walker|first=James|date=31 January 2019|website=Press Gazette|language=en-US|access-date=12 February 2019|archive-date=12 February 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190212062704/https://pressgazette.co.uk/we-were-wrong-us-news-rating-tool-boosts-mail-online-trust-ranking-after-talks-with-unnamed-daily-mail-exec/|url-status=live}}</ref>

==== Wikipedia determination of unreliability ====
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.<ref name=":6" /><ref name=":5" /><ref name=":3" /> Its use as a reference is now "generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist",<ref name="The Guardian" /><ref name=":6" /><ref>{{cite web |last=Bowden |first=George |date=9 February 2017 |title=''Daily Mail'' Banned As 'Reliable Source' On Wikipedia in Unprecedented Move |url=http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/daily-mail-banned-from-wikipedia_uk_589c3e13e4b07685621810f8 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170209134706/http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/daily-mail-banned-from-wikipedia_uk_589c3e13e4b07685621810f8 |archive-date=9 February 2017 |access-date=9 February 2017 |website=The Huffington Post, UK |publisher=Huffington Post |quote=The decision was made by the site's community}}</ref> and it can no longer be used as proof of [[Notability in the English Wikipedia|notability]].<ref name=":6" /> It can still be used in reference to an article about the ''Daily Mail'' itself.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Rodriguez |first=Ashley |date=10 February 2017 |title=In a first, Wikipedia has deemed the Daily Mail too "unreliable" to be used as a citation |url=https://qz.com/907715/in-a-first-wikipedia-has-deemed-the-daily-mail-and-mail-online-too-unreliable-to-be-used-as-a-citation/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210606080509/https://qz.com/907715/in-a-first-wikipedia-has-deemed-the-daily-mail-and-mail-online-too-unreliable-to-be-used-as-a-citation/ |archive-date=6 June 2021 |access-date=30 November 2022 |website=[[Quartz (publication)|Quartz]] |language=en}}</ref> Support for the ban centred on "the ''Daily Mail''<nowiki/>'s reputation for poor [[fact checking]], sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication".<ref name="The Guardian" /><ref name=":6" /><ref name=":5" /> Some users opposed the decision, arguing that it is "actually reliable for some subjects" and "may have been more reliable historically."<ref name=":7">{{Cite news |last=Oremus |first=Will |date=2017-02-09 |title=Wikipedia's Daily Mail Ban Is a Welcome Rebuke to Terrible Journalism |url=https://slate.com/technology/2017/02/wikipedias-daily-mail-ban-is-a-welcome-rebuke-to-terrible-journalism.html |access-date=2024-08-17 |work=[[Slate (magazine)|Slate]] |language=en-US |issn=1091-2339}}</ref>

Wikipedia's ban of the ''Daily Mail'' generated a significant amount of media attention, especially from the British media.<ref name=":4">{{Cite web |last=Harrison |first=Stephen |date=1 July 2021 |title=Wikipedia's War on the Daily Mail |url=https://slate.com/technology/2021/07/wikipedia-daily-mail-generally-unreliable.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210701131014/https://slate.com/technology/2021/07/wikipedia-daily-mail-generally-unreliable.html |archive-date=1 July 2021 |access-date=10 July 2021 |website=[[Slate (magazine)|Slate]] |language=en}}</ref> Though the ''Daily Mail'' strongly contested this decision by the community, Wikipedia's co-founder [[Jimmy Wales]] backed the community's choice, stating: "I think what [the ''Daily Mail'' has] done brilliantly in this ad funded world (is) they've mastered the art of [[Clickbait|click bait]], they've mastered the art of hyped up headlines, they've also mastered the art of, I'm sad to say, of running stories that simply aren't true. And that's why Wikipedia decided not to accept them as a source anymore. It's very problematic, they get very upset when we say this, but it's just fact."<ref>{{cite web |last=Kharpal |first=Arjun |date=19 May 2017 |title=The Daily Mail has 'mastered the art of running stories that aren't true', Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales says |url=https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/19/daily-mail-jimmy-wales-fake-news-wikipedia-wikitribune.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200615145709/https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/19/daily-mail-jimmy-wales-fake-news-wikipedia-wikitribune.html |archive-date=15 June 2020 |access-date=16 June 2020 |publisher=[[CNBC]]}}</ref> A February 2017 editorial in ''[[The Times]]'' commenting on the decision stated that "Newspapers make errors and have the responsibility to correct them. Wikipedia editors' fastidiousness, however, appears to reflect less a concern for accuracy than dislike of the ''Daily Mail''{{'}}s opinions."<ref>{{Cite news |date=10 February 2017 |title=Truth or Consequences: Fake news will not be countered by castigating legitimate journalism |url=https://www.thetimes.com/comment/article/truth-or-consequences-h6zfdj06n |url-access=limited |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201031051645/https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/truth-or-consequences-h6zfdj06n |archive-date=31 October 2020 |access-date=16 October 2020 |work=[[The Times]] |page=29}}</ref> [[Slate (magazine)|''Slate'']] writer Will Oremus said the decision "should encourage more careful sourcing across Wikipedia while doubling as a richly deserved rebuke to a publication that represents some of the worst forces in online news."<ref name=":7" />

In 2018, the [[Wikipedia community]] upheld the ''Daily Mail''<nowiki/>'s deprecation as a source.<ref name=":4" />