New subject: Foundation official response re Daily Mail issue

9 Feb 2017


      On 9 February 2017 at 15:13, Stephen Philbrick <
stephen.w.philbrick@gmail.com> wrote:
...
Does anyone have a link to the recent Foundation Statement about the Daily
Mail? We are receiving inquires at OTRS, and it would be nice if I see see
our official position.
Here's the current version that's going out as of a few minutes ago, may be
useful for adaptation. You probably can't put HTML links in, so maybe paste
some URLs :-)
(Currently trying to find an editor in the UK who can make Newsnight
*tonight*, I can't.)
- d.
Hi X,
Thanks for reaching out. We’d be happy to share a comment from the
Wikimedia Foundation on the recent outcome of a discussion among volunteer
editors around the use of the Daily Mail as a reliable source on English
Wikipedia.
One point of clarity -- A number of outlets have called this move a “ban.”
This is not a blanket ban, but a general statement from volunteer editors
on the reliability of the source for use on English Wikipedia.
Also, I should mention that as the nonprofit that supports Wikipedia and
the other Wikimedia projects, the Wikimedia Foundation generally does not
set editorial policy on Wikipedia. That is up to volunteer editors around
the world who contribute to the site.
Editors have discussed the reliability of the Daily Mail since at least
early 2015
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Potentially_unreliable_sources&diff=642377260&oldid=642376102.
In January 2017, an RfC
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Daily_Mail_RfC
(Request for Comment) discussion was proposed to evaluate the use of the Daily
Mail as a reliable source on English Wikipedia. This is one of many
community discussions that take place every day about a broad range of
issues, including reliable sources.
In this case, volunteer editors seem to 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.” This means
that there is a general recommendation according to this discussion that
the Daily Mail not be referenced as a "reliable source" on English
Wikipedia or used to demonstrate an article subject’s notability.
That said, I encourage you to read the comments in the RfC
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Daily_Mail_RfC
itself. You will find considerable discussion on the topic, including views
both for and against the proposal. Wikipedia is a living, breathing
ecosystem where volunteers regularly discuss and evolve the norms that
guide the encyclopedia. Among Wikipedia’s many policies and guidelines,
there is even a policy to ignore all rules
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules. It captures the
open spirit of the community: “If a rule
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines prevents
you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.”
As a general guide to reliable sources, articles on Wikipedia should be
based on reliable, third-party
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Third-party_sources, published
sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Editors assess
the reliability of a source at these levels:
-
The piece of work itself (the article, book)
   -
The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)
   -
The publisher of the work (for example, Random House
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_House or Cambridge University
   Press https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_University_Press)
They also use a variety of criteria to evaluate reliability within each of
these levels. For example, one signal that a news organization engages in
fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy is the publication of
corrections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correction_%28newspaper%29.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Foundation official response re Daily Mail issue