
Wikipedia bans the Daily Mail as a source for being 'unreliable' - bookbinder
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/wikipedia-editors-ban-daily-mail-source-citation-unreliable-mail-online-a7570856.html
======
Nomentatus
As I've mentioned in these forums before, I've personally had Wikipedia reject
the New York Times as a source (re prevalence of a condition, for a medical
article) not because the rejecting editor who camped on that article knew
better or had any other source, but because it wasn't a scientific journal. At
least in this case they're on much more solid ground.

