So, an editor is asking the Reliable Sources noticeboard if they can use the following as a source, properly attributed as the thoughts of the author.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/you/art ... ather.html
Just take a look at what one of the Administrators has to say for himself, as he registers his "oppose"....https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... Daily_Mail
the Mail have probably scanned it for libel (or at least libel they can't afford to get away with) but nothing else
This is exact the sort of thing that the "ban" is based on. He doesn't offer up anything by way of evidence to remotely prove this assertion, which since it directly relates to the supposed competence and ethics of identifiable people who work in regulated professions, is actually a clear cut violation of Wikipedia's own ethics code designed to prevent defamation, WP:BLP. He could and should be blocked for it if he cannot immediately provide proof, but he is an Admin, so that would be like arresting a policeman. Unlikely, if not impossible. Certainly impossible for someone who registered a Wikipedia account for the sole purpose of filing a complaint about that comment.
And as any lawyer will tell you, saying "probably" doesn't cover his ass here at all, except ironically if you convince a judge this is simply the opinion of an uninformed idiot who nobody should or would believe. Which would normally be the case for an internet random, but since Wikipedia took the extraordinary step of actually singling out the Mail for a ban, and the world's media (the Mail's competition) reacted as if this had been an informed decision which should carry some weight. Maybe the opinion of the courts will be different, maybe they will take the likely impact of such statements more seriously from now on, and adjust their rulings and damages accordingly.
After "Enemies of the People" I would not touch the Daily Mail with a barge pole.
Relevance? Yet another comment made on Wikipedia that shows their distaste for the publication was driven by bias. They hate the politics of the publication, and so have punished it accordingly, using the only means they had at their disposal.
As Slatersteven suggests, why did the Mail think it was important to mention, but no other newspaper did?
Well, there's this little inconvenient fact that the Wikipedians seem to always forget - the Mail is a huge, market leading, award winning, newspaper, who got that big in part because they actively seek out exclusives. Obviously in this case the author was paid a lot of money to write her story in the paper. Contrary to the Wikipedians belief, even if it is news gold, you don't go wasting your own money to procure the exact same words, or independently research and verify it all, just so you can publish the same stuff days later. Typically it will be run on the same day in other titles, but attributed to the Mail. And so, according to their own stupid ban, it would still be inadmissible.
This is just yet more proof the people who voted to ban the Mail, didn't understand a thing about how the industry works, or really have any idea what they were losing. And they can't claim ignorance here either, enough people tried to point out the basics to them, explain what an exclusive was for example, they just didn't care.
If this request is approved, it shows the Wikipedians know they made a mistake and they know their Mail ban is unworkable, they just don't want to admit it. The ban wording is clear, the Mail absolutely cannot be used to source this author's words, not even with attribution. We are meant to assume the entire thing is a fabrication.
And if it is declined, it will show they are absolutely prepared to omit information from Wikipedia solely because of their political bias and their unwillingness to accept that it was not remotely true that anything the Mail prints, if it has encyclopedic value, will have been picked up elsewhere, and in a way that involves independent verification. This was a convenient fiction. It only becomes true if they themselves define somethings encyclopedic value by whether or not it only appears in the Mail. Which they happily do, of course. Because they're not writing an encyclopedia and they have no ethics.