Wikipedia editors have decided that the Mail and the Mail Online are “unreliable” sources of information, and are to be “generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist”.
A spokesperson for Wikipedia said the move was not a blanket ban, rather a statement from volunteers on the publication's reliability for use on the website.
As you can imagine, some folks at the Mail weren't best pleased with this decision.
The battleground swiftly moved to Twitter, where an argument broke out between Dan Hodges, a commentator for the Mail on Sunday, and Sunny Hundal, editor of the Political Scrapbook.
Hodges bristled after Hundal responded to a tweet that defended the publication:
What followed was a bitter back and forth.
After Hundal alleges that the Express, the Sun and the Star are also additional purveyors of “unreliable” news, Hodges posed the question: Who decides what should be done with them?
The answer, to Hundal, was easy: websites have the right to decide what they deem 'unreliable' news sources and as such, to ban them as they see fit.
And then Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, waded into the dispute and it was Game Over:
Hodges attempted to come back, by arguing that if someone posted an entry on Wikipedia with a link to a Daily Mail article, it would be removed. Surely that's a top-down decision?
Well, no not really.