David 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!
"Rogol" 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: Wikimediaemail@example.com > 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 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>