Donate

Wikipedia joins the tabloid-haters

Guy Birchall

Topics Free Speech

Want to read spiked ad-free? Become a spiked supporter.

Wikipedia has banned the use of the Daily Mail as a source of information on its site. The self-styled ‘library of the web’ has decided the largest tabloid news site in the world is ‘generally unreliable’ and has a reputation for ‘poor fact-checking, sensationalism and flat-out fabrication’. Yes, a crowd-sourced website that can be edited by any Tom, Dick or Harry is now fretting about facts.

The Daily Mail is subject to libel laws, and staffed by trained journalists. This is more than can be said for Wikipedia, which is hardly famous for its reliability. In the past it has included public entries calling actor Gary Oldman a ‘giraffe’, asserting that footballer Thierry Henry ‘was born a c**t and remains a c**t’, and accusing teeny-bopper band the Jonas Brothers of having genital warts.

Whether or not you like the Daily Mail, to denounce its journalistic reputation without proof is unnecessary and wrong. Every online paper will contain occasional inaccuracies, but this is the nature of online news reporting.

Wikipedia’s editors need to be honest about their decision – they don’t like the Daily Mail because of its politics. Preaching against the Daily Mail is an easy and lazy form of virtue-signalling, exercised by people trying to demonstrate their PC credentials. From campaigns like Stop Funding Hate to students’ union bans on tabloids, there is a cultural trend towards banning opposing views. Wikipedia’s decision to remove the Daily Mail is part of this censorious climate.

Wikipedia is a valuable online tool. But if it wants to uphold a reputation for providing objective facts, it has to remain politically neutral. Given that the Daily Mail can legitimately be cited in academic papers, books and studies as a source (yet another advantage it has over Wikipedia) there is no just reason for Wikipedia to denigrate its worth.

Enjoying Spiked?

Why not make an instant, one-off donation?

We are funded by you. Thank you!

Please wait...
Thank you!

Attempting to a pander to a certain political persuasion is a dangerous game to play for a website which asks its contributors to ‘only add verifiable and factual information rather than personal views and opinions’. Pretending the Daily Mail doesn’t exist by banning it from its website won’t do Wikipedia any favours. Far more dangerous than the odd factual error in a paper is a website which cherry picks where it gets its facts from.

Guy Birchall is a writer based in London.

SUPPORT SPIKED’S FREE AND FEARLESS JOURNALISM

spiked is prepared to say what others won’t. We don’t follow political fashions and we’re not beholden to any billionaire bosses. We’re funded by you – our generous, loyal readers.

Please support us today to help us produce more cutting-edge content that kicks back against our censorious and authoritarian times.

If you make a regular donation – of £5 a month or £50 a year – you can become a and enjoy:

–Ad-free reading
–Exclusive bonus content
–Regular events
–Access to our comments section

The most impactful way to support spiked’s journalism is by registering as a supporter and making a monthly contribution. Thank you.

Please wait...

Comments

Want to join the conversation?

Only spiked supporters and patrons, who donate regularly to us, can comment on our articles.

Join today