Thanks for that.  I think the point might have been strengthened by
pointing out that the English-language Wikipedia standards for reliability
are so high, that its editors do not even consider Wikipedia itself to be a
reliable source!


On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 3:36 PM, David Gerard <dger...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 9 February 2017 at 15:13, Stephen Philbrick <
> stephen.w.philbr...@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>.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Reply via email to