Liberal loyalist Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as ‘unreliable source’

The world’s most laughably inaccurate and untrustworthy information website says it’s taking a stand against so-called “fake news” by banning one of Great Britain’s most well-known media publications from its list of approved citations. Reports indicate that the online “free encyclopedia” Wikipedia, which is widely known to publish biased and fake information about all sorts of topics, has ironically declared the U.K.’s Daily Mail to somehow be untrustworthy, and thus says it will no longer allow any references to the Daily Mail on any of its pages.

This blacklisting by Wikipedia came after a dozen or so Wikipedia editors started complaining about the content being published by the Daily Mail, which they accused of being “unreliable.” The Daily Mail has been known to defend President Donald Trump, for instance, and offer both sides of the story on vaccine safety, which apparently caught the attention of the propaganda police over at Wikipedia who would rather not see such thinking propagated.

So for no substantive reason other than apparently to try to punish the Daily Mail for its political incorrectness on these and other issues, Wikipedia has tasked thousands of its editors with going through the website to remove all links to the Daily Mail in order to — get this — preserve its informational integrity. These same editors claim that the Daily Mail has a reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism, and “flat-out fabrication.”

“Based on the requests for comments section [on the reliable sources noticeboard], volunteer editors on English Wikipedia have come to a consensus that the Daily Mail is ‘generally unreliable and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist,'” reads a statement issued by Wikipedia’s parent company, the Wikimedia Foundation.

“This means that the Daily Mail will generally not be referenced as a ‘reliable source’ on English Wikipedia, and volunteer editors are encouraged to change existing citations to the Daily Mail to another source deemed reliable by the community. This is consistent with how Wikipedia editors evaluate and use media outlets in general — with common sense and caution.”

Daily Mail previously banned journalists from using Wikipedia, citing ‘unreliability’

What’s truly hilarious about this grandstanding attempt by Wikipedia to cater to its self-important editors is the fact that most of the world sees Wikipedia as being hopelessly biased and unreliable. Even the Daily Mail told its journalists not to use Wikipedia as a sole source because the site is riddled with propaganda and non-facts being spread around as truth.

The Daily Mail also has a solid reputation for its reliability, as evidenced by the fact that out of more than half a million stories published last year only two were found to have errors or inaccuracies requiring fixes, according to the U.K.’s trusted Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO).

What’s even more sad than Wikipedia’s lame attempt to censor a reliable news source while claiming to take the moral high road, is the page’s deranged level of self-importance in the world. Nobody with any common sense relies on Wikipedia for truth, and yet Wikipedia obviously considers itself to be some kind of standard-bearer when it comes to information. This latest stunt will only further solidify Wikipedia’s unrelenting commitment to political bias, and once again prove to the world that the “free encyclopedia” is little more than the propaganda arm of the political and cultural left.

“All those people who believe in freedom of expression should be profoundly concerned at this cynical politically motivated attempt to stifle the free press,” stated a spokesman for the Mail family of newspapers.

Sources for this article include:

comments powered by Disqus