A vote by editors of the Wikipedia has meant that Daily Mail is now regarded by the online encyclopaedia, as a 'generally unreliable' source effectively banning it from being used as one. The decision is being viewed as quite an unusual move for the two reasons that they rarely impose any 'blanket bans' on publications and it still allows information to be sourced from news organisations like Fox News which are quite controversial for their credibility in reporting news. According to the editors, the Mail has a reputation essentially based around: 'poor fact checking, sensationalism and flat-out fabrication.' However there hasn't been uncontested support for the ban and there are individuals who oppose it for the reasons stated above as well as the idea that the reasoning behind the ban is solely 'driven by a dislike of the publication.' Regardless, editors have rounded up volunteers to review the 12,000 links already on the Wikipedia to the Daily Mail in order to replace them with alternative sources where possible. This has been to the dismay of the paper, with them in 2016 only receiving 'two upheld adjudications' for inaccuracy from IPSO.
In a time when there's global debate on the issue of fake news, it's no surprise a move of this nature was made. Publications are seeking to obtain and disseminate the most accurate information possible, free from elements like bias and outright lies. The Daily Mail has quite an infamous reputation for this kind of thing, having stories that not only align with quite a right-wing ideology but also ones that contain misinformation. This move is quite noteworthy too as usually it's Wikipedia in the spotlight for having false information as oppose to a newspaper publication. Perhaps it shows though a new approach that the encyclopaedia has in providing the most accurate information possible.
No comments:
Post a Comment