Wikipedia no longer accepts The Daily Fail in citations because it is...

A-R-T-H-U-R

....too unreliable. LOL. Who would have even thought that?

According to The Independent today

Wikipedia editors have said they will no longer accept links to Daily Mail stories to support citations because it is too unreliable.

A fiery debate on its suitability as a source ended with a consensus view that the Mail, and Mail Online, were "generally unreliable" and their use "is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist".

The statement added: "The general themes of the support votes centred on the Daily Mail's reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication."

SDAddick

Is there a list of publications that cannot be cited? I'd like to add Breitbart and some others to that list.

PragueAddick

SDAddick said:

Is there a list of publications that cannot be cited? I'd like to add Breitbart and some others to that list.

You will interfere with @Big_Bad_World 's project if you do that...but he's a Spanner so that's an extra reason to do it.

Big_Bad_World

PragueAddick said:

SDAddick said:

Is there a list of publications that cannot be cited? I'd like to add Breitbart and some others to that list.

You will interfere with @Big_Bad_World 's project if you do that...but he's a Spanner so that's an extra reason to do it.

I thought you'd be too busy putting half of SE9 through university to resurrect yet another of your fabrications.

For the record, no, I have no wish to come and get all cosy with you in the Long Pond either. It all comes across as a bit, well, you know, creepy.

A-R-T-H-U-R

Wikipedia editors discussing the Daily Mail

man_at_milletts

A-R-T-H-U-R said:

Wikipedia editors discussing the Daily Mail

More like Roland holding a board meeting.