Daily Mail has been considered by as unreliable source by Wikipedia. Thus, leading to the changing of existing citations to the Daily Mail to a more reliable source as deemed by the English Wikipedia.
The move of Wikipedia putting a blanket ban on a certain publication is considered as something unusual for the free online encyclopedia. The concept of prohibiting the use of the British tabloid as a source started when a Wikipedia user and editor Hillbillyholiday made a request.
"Should we prohibit the use of The Daily Mail as a source? I envisage something just short of blacklisting, whereby its introduction to an article could be accepted only upon there being a demonstrable need to use it instead of other sources," Adweek quoted user Hillbillyholiday as saying.
The said proposal made by the Wikipedia editor was then discussed thoroughly after it was brought up back in early January. After month-long discussion, Wikipedia then decided that the British tabloid will no longer be used as a source for the site.
"Consensus has determined that the Daily Mail (including its online version dailymail.co.uk) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles. An edit filter should be put in place, going forward to warn editors attempting to use the Daily Mail as a reference," The Guardian quoted Wikipedia editors as saying.
In brief, the online free encyclopedia declared Daily Mail as generally unreliable because of poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication. However, this would not mean that linking to the site will totally stop. There would still be some instances that a Wikipedia entry will be discussing about the newspaper site or individuals closely related to the site.
Watch here below discussion about Wikipedia: