Editing Daily Mail (section)

==== 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" />