Earlier this year, The Guardian eported that editors at Wikipedia had "voted to ban the Daily Mail as a source for the website, calling the publication "generally unreliable". Two months later, not only previous Daily Mail citations on Wikipedia pages are still alive, several new ones have also appeared since.
It turns out that there was no vote to ban the Daily Mail because Wikipedia editors don't vote and the whole thing was just typical Wackypedia antics.
Editors are following the line that though it's discouraged, the Daily Mail can be - and still is - cited, particularly if there is no other source.
Why do we care? Well Wackypedia sources us as news source on a number of subjects, but each time we have attempted to get an entry our page has been spiked because we are not a “real news source”. The editors involved had links to our rivals. There appears to be a disconnection between Wackypedia and its editors with the editors basically having too much power to decide what is real or not.