Wikipedia has prohibited the use of the Daily Mail for citations on the open-source encyclopedia, describing the publication as “generally unreliable.”

The website carried out a survey among its editors, all of whom are volunteers, seeking their opinions on the prohibition of the Daily Mail as a source on the site, which many editors apparently welcomed.

“The paper is trash, pure and simple,” wrote editor Hillbillyholiday, who initiated the Daily Mail ban in January. Another editor, JRPG, branded it a “mouthpiece for Paul Dacre,” a reference to the newspaper’s editor.

Dacre's calling for a copy of Wikipedia to be brought to him so that he can burn it. Interns currently deciding who is the one to tell him. — RogueDailyMail (@RogueDailyMail) February 8, 2017

“It is a byword for the worst kinds of yellow journalism,” Slatersteven wrote in support of the ban. “It is (in effect) a fake news organ. Just because a lot of people buy it (or even by it) does not mean it is a reliable source for anything other than its own views.”

Coming to the decision, the website’s editors noted on Wednesday that the Daily Mail has a “reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication.”

Outrageously misleading headline @DailyMailUK . Was talking divorce legal costs in general not my personal situation pic.twitter.com/13NsHXIZZ7 — Gary Lineker (@GaryLineker) April 25, 2016

Hillbillyholiday noted that newspaper could only be used if there was “a demonstrable need to use it instead of other sources.”

As the outlet is referenced in “multiple thousands” of articles on Wikipedia, editors issued a notice stating that “volunteers are encouraged to review them, and remove/replace them as appropriate.”

Wikipedia has previously banned US tabloid National Enquirer from being cited on the site, describing it as one of “the more extreme tabloids.”