please empty your brain below
Allegedly, Wikipedia no longer considers the Daily Mail as a reference-able source due to the DM's presentation of comment and "manufactured" stories as factual news.

dg writes: Incorrect.

Also worth noting that Metro has same owner as Daily Mail, unclear how much content is jointly produced.

MilesT | 16.12.19 - 11:23 a.m. | #

On Wikipedia, in practice, editors do not just consider the Daily Mail to be "potentially unreliable" in a nuanced fashion: virtually any citation to the Daily Mail, and anything sourced only to the Daily Mail, is liable to be removed on sight. Which is more or less what the 2017 RfC concluded: "its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited … nor should it be used as a source in articles." Mainly because it is almost impossible to discern where the lying ends and the journalism starts (if such a place actually exists).

Andrew | 16.12.19 - 5:43 p.m. | #

There is a song somwhere on the web with a chorus of "It must be true cos I read it in the Daily Mail ...".

strawbrick | 16.12.19 - 8:20 p.m. | #

In Victoria Wood's TV comedy series "Dinnerladies", the character Dolly, when reporting daft and dubious "facts", often says "it was in the Daily Mail".

Gripper | 16.12.19 - 10:41 p.m. | #

They don't report news anymore, it's all gossip, speculation and childish coercion...

Darren | 16.12.19 - 10:44 p.m. | #











TridentScan v2.10.0 | Privacy Policy