Wikipedia is for many an important data source. Others dismiss it because they consider it not serious, “chafa”, although I have not seen arguments to support this affirmation. In fact, I think that Wikipedia contains relevant information in most cases and testing it is not very difficult. Take the test yourself: look for a topic that you know pretty well and see how much Wikipedia says and if it has the expected level of information. You will see that in most cases it is like that.
But since Wikipedia is an entity that feeds a group of volunteers, it is clear that false news or unreliable information may well get in the way. For this reason, the editors of the main Internet online encyclopedia decided to veto the Daily Mail, as a reliable source for practically all circumstances, although it is established as “generally unreliable”.
This is very unusual for the online encyclopedia, which on very rare occasions has vetoed a particular publication. For example, it allows information to be cited from Russia Today and Fox News, two unreliable places for Wikipedia publishers. The editors described their veto arguments based on “the Daily Mail’s bad reputation in terms of checking data, being sensationalist and also making notes.”
It must be said that the Wikipedia Foundation does not control the editing processes, but even so the volunteer editors of the English Wikipedia had already raised the alarm about the reliability of the Daily Mail since 2015.
Thus, “Based on the comments made in the corresponding section (in the forum of reliable sources), the volunteer editors of the English Wikipedia have reached the consensus that the Daily Mail is generally unreliable and in general its use as reference is prohibited, especially when there are other sources that are much more reliable,” and they add:
This means that the Daily Mail will not be generally referenced as a reliable source in the English Wikipedia and the volunteer editors call for changing the quotes that may exist from the Daily Mail in their articles, looking for more reliable sources for the community. This is consistent with the way that volunteer editors evaluate and use the media, that is, with common sense and with caution.
No representative of the Daily Mail has responded to the request to comment on the media.