Wikipedia: The Unexpected Hero Fighting Fake News

I can’t explain the utter joy surging through my veins as I type the following sentence:

Wikipedia has banned the Daily Mail as a source, deeming it unreliable.

This is a thing that’s actually happened and somehow little has been said about it. The vote by Wiki editors took place at the beginning of this week, and is almost unprecedented. Most don’t even realise Wikipedia has editors, never mind ones that make such bold moves.

A Vote Against Unreliability

So why have they done it and what does it mean? The vote was called and the ban passed due to the Daily Mail’s “reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism and flat-out fabrication.” It’s a damning statement from the online encyclopaedia, but it’s not a new one. They’ve apparently been considering action since at least 2015.

How did this decision come about? The site has volunteer editors and a reliable sources forum. It was here that discussions and debates about the reliability of the Daily Mail came about. Those fact checking and substantiating articles on Wikipedia repeatedly discovered sensationalism and erroneous facts – all in all, it was bad press. A proposal was made in January, with much debate on either side of the fence.

Those opposing the ban stated that Wikipedia uses plenty of other unreliable news sources, and it’s true. They still allow Fox News, which would have more clout if written by an actual fox. There’s newspapers backed by dodgy governments as well, those in the pockets of tyrants and dictators, so the Daily Mail may feel a little hard done by.

Good Paper, Good Press

Truth is, it shouldn’t. If any paper features fake or fabricated news, it should be held accountable. They don’t get to defend themselves by point fingers at other wrong-doers. It may well be that their fellow bad press publications get the boot soon enough too.

Its a huge and timely step towards getting rid of fake news, whether you realise it or not. Wikipedia is the most widely used reference work in the world. It is responsible for disseminating information to millions across the globe. It’s quite the burden, one the site takes surprisingly seriously.

From now on, use of the Mail as a source is prohibited, though not as yet enforced. Articles using the Daily Mail as a source will have flags, there will be an edit filter to warn people about using it, and volunteers are about to review every link to the paper on the site. They will then replace it with a more trustworthy source.

Backlash and Pigtail Pulling

The Daily Mail has obviously objected, stating that Wikipedia is trying to cynically stifle the free press and that the move is political.  They went on to add, in a note befitting a primary school falling out, that it doesn’t use Wikipedia for the same reasons. If that’s the case, we can only assume that they’ll be pleased to not have their name connected with such an untrustworthy source from here on out. They have standards to uphold, apparently.

For me, it’s a step in the right direction. Finally, fake is getting taken to task by a most unlikely hero.

The post Wikipedia: The Unexpected Hero Fighting Fake News appeared first on Felix Magazine.

Wikipedia: The Unexpected Hero Fighting Fake News posted first on http://www.felixmagazine.com/