Earlier this week The Guardian summarised that Wikipedia editors had voted to "ban" the Daily Mail as a reference for the online encyclopaedia in all but exceptional circumstances and that links to other outlets would renew the bulk of current links to the news outlet.
How was this decision made? What kind of data fed into this decision-making process and what does it tell us about the future of online content censorship? Or who decides what is "real" on the Internet, especially as social media platforms increasingly play the role of global censor?
Let's find out an answer!
The judgment, published last week, did not even includes Katherine Maher, which runs Wikipedia because as per policies, the foundation doesn't intervene in editorial policy.
Speaking from the US the next day, Maher seemed comfortable about the process that led to the decision, and the probability that it could be modified.
"We are always looking for what characterizes reliability, and the various characteristics of the security, and what the [discussion about using the Mail] focuses on is issues of fact-checking before publication and the issuing of corrections when articles are wrong," she said.
"It's my understanding that in this instance they were looking at how well the Daily Mail adheres to those standards of reliability. I presume that should circumstances change, Wikimedians would be very open to reconsidering the usage of the Daily Mail as a source they can use as widely as in the past. There's nothing to stop it being used again," majorly reported by The Guardian
The reason came out that "The editors described the arguments for a ban as centered on the Daily Mail's reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication," reports The Guardian.
"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 ' unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist.'(Wikipedia Noticeboard)
Daily Mail will commonly not be mentioned as a 'reliable source' on English Wikipedia, and volunteer editors are inspired to change live citations to the Daily Mail to another reference considered safe by the community. It is consonant with how Wikipedia editors judge and practice media outlets in standard – with common sense and attention.
Supposedly, Theresa May, the Prime Minister of UK has hired Daily Mail's political editor James Slack as a chief spokesman for her staff. If confirmed, James Slack would become the second Daily Mail's political editor to join the Conservative Government.
The reason why this hiring has become a little controversial is that this decision has been taken by Theresa correctly a few days after Wikipedia imposed the ban on Daily Mail.
A spokesman for Mail Newspapers stated that only a tiny portion of the site's millions of unknown editors had been included in the decision, "It is hard to know whether to laugh or cry at this move by Wikipedia. For the record, because even the Daily Mail has banned all its writers from using Wikipedia as an individual source in 2014 because of its unreliability.
That's all, folks!