Is Quantum Darwinism considered an interpretation of Quantum Mechanics? I did not see Quantum Darwinism in the Wikipedia article on the interpretations of Quantum Mechanics but there is a Wikipedia article on Quantum Darwinism so this prompted my question.
As for example the "Many-worlds" interpretion of Quantum Mechanics is listed in the Wikipedia article but not Darwinism.
Does this mean that they are not mutually exclusive? 
 A: Yes: it's an interpretative theory of decoherence and how classical reality emerges from quantum physics that seeks to help solve the measurement problem.
The article seems to only list and compare more comprehensive interpretations. Quantum Darwinism is compatible with multiple such interpretations:

He suggested that the entire universe is a quantum object, with every possible outcome of a measurement realized - just in different realities. This leads to a mind-boggling scenario, in which every possible
quantum state exists in its own world, a scenario rather simplistically called the "many worlds" interpretation. So which alternative does Zurek back? He favors decoherence theory, which describes how interaction with the environment gradually destroys a quantum state. But Zurek is quick to point out that decoherence is compatible with both interpretations. "Collapse has metaphysical connotations. It begins to touch on whether you think like Bohr or Everett," says Zurek. "What I am trying to do, among
other things, is to try and stay away from taking a side."

The more comprehensive interpretation by Zurek is the Existential Interpretation, which incorporates Quantum Darwinism.
There's still no article about it so I suggest you and people who read this to create it here (currently it's a redirect with possibilities and no relevant target-content). If you need help with editing Wikipedia just ask. I'd appreciate if people came together here to create one of the many missing articles there.

On whether or not they are mutually exclusive:
looks like currently they aren't. Wikipedia got this:

Decoherent interpretations of many-worlds using einselection to explain how a small number of classical pointer states can emerge from the enormous Hilbert space of superpositions have been proposed by Wojciech H. Zurek. "Under scrutiny of the environment, only pointer states remain unchanged. Other states decohere into mixtures of stable pointer states that can persist, and, in this sense, exist: They are einselected." These ideas complement MWI and bring the interpretation in line with our perception of reality.

And also in the referenced paper Zurek writes:

One could speculate about reality of branches with other outcomes. We abstain from this – our discussion is interpretation-free, and this is a virtue. Indeed, “reality” or “existence” of universal state vector seems  problematic.   Quantum states acquire objective existence when reproduced  in many copies. Individual states – one might say with Bohr – are mostly information, too fragile for objective existence.  And there is only one copy of the Universe. Treating its state as if it really existed [26, 27, 28] seems unwarranted and “classical”.

On the question whether other worlds would be real or unreal in MWI Zurek seems to lean towards unreal interpretations. (For example he explains it around minute 5 here.)
I'd be interested in whether Quantum Darwinism could be made mutually exclusive to at least many "real" worlds interpretations. For example wouldn't the universe at large also be quantum and wouldn't this process of (negative) selection also apply / constitute a selection of the "real world"? Then I'm also not sure how this einselected set of possibilities would transform to a single true reality. Does it have to do with another type of interaction, with embeddedness into the universal system or with true "randomness"? Could the consistent histories interpretation help explain this part? Which interpretations are not mutually exclusive and could or even should they (e.g. Existential Interpretation + de Broglie-Bohm, consistent histories, MUWI) be unified for a more accurate and complete interpretation?
