Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources: Difference between revisions

This is an explanatory essay about the Wikipedia:Reliable sources guideline. This page provides additional information about concepts in the page(s) it supplements. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.

Shortcuts WP:RSP WP:RS/P

This page in a nutshell: This is a list of repeatedly discussed sources, collected and summarized for convenience. context matters tremendously when determining how to use this list.

This is a list of sources whose

, and if more recent discussions considering new evidence or arguments reach a different consensus, this list should be updated to reflect those changes.

Reliability is an inquiry that takes place pursuant to the

. These policies work together to determine whether information from reliable sources should be included or excluded.

Refer to the legend for definitions of the icons in the list, but note that the discussion summaries provide more specific guidance on sources than the icons in the "Status" column. When in doubt, defer to the linked discussions, which provide in-depth arguments on when it is appropriate to use a source.

, because while it is usually unreliable as a source, it is designed to appear otherwise.

Consider also the

have the highest.

What if my source isn't here?

Don't panic. If your source isn't listed here, the only thing it really means is that it hasn't been the subject of repeated community discussion. That may be because the source you want to use is a stellar source, and we simply never needed to talk about it because it was so obvious.

(RSN). That is, after all, how the entries on this list got here to begin with.

A source's absence from the list does not imply that it is any more or less reliable than the sources that are present.

.

Before doing so, please thoroughly familiarize yourself with content of previous discussions, and particularly the reasoning why consensus was reached, and not simply the outcome itself. Also consider when consensus was formed, and that the outcomes of very recent discussions are unlikely to be quickly overturned. Repeatedly restarting discussions where a strong and recent consensus already exists, may be considered

.

If you feel that this list inadequately summarizes the content of the linked discussions,

. In updating this list, please be mindful that it should only summarize the content of past discussions, and should not include novel arguments not previously covered in a centralized forum. If you would like to present a novel argument or interpretation, please do so in one of these forums, so that the discussion may be linked to, and itself summarized here.

Inclusion criteria

For a source to be added to this list, editors generally expect two or more significant discussions that mention the source's reliability, or an RfC discussion on the source's reliability that took place on the RSN. For a discussion to be considered significant, most editors expect no fewer than two participants for RSN discussions where the source's name is in the section heading, and no fewer than three participants for all other discussions.

Source	Status (legend)	Discussions			Uses
		List	Last	Summary
Advameg (City-Data )		2019  2019  2019 +14[b]	2019	Advameg operates WP:COPYLINK prohibits linking to copyright violations.	1   2   +43
Aljazeera.com )		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9	2019	Al Jazeera is considered a generally reliable news blogs should be handled with the corresponding policy.	1   2
AlterNet		1 2 3 4 5	2019	There is consensus that AlterNet is generally unreliable. Editors consider AlterNet a syndicated content should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher, and the citation should preferably point to the original publisher.	1
Amazon		1 2 3 4 5	2017	User reviews on Amazon are anonymous, self-published , and unverifiable, and should not be used at all. Amazon is a reliable source for basic information about a work (such as release date, ISBN, etc.), although it is unnecessary to cite Amazon when the work itself may serve as a source for that information (e.g., authors' names and ISBNs). Future release dates may be unreliable.	1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16
The American Conservative (TAC)		2019 1	2019	There is consensus that The American Conservative is a usable source for biased or opinionated .	1
Ancestry.com		1 2 3 4	2015	Ancestry.com is a user-generated content , which is unreliable.	1
Answers.com (WikiAnswers)		1 2 3 4	2010	Answers.com (previously known as WikiAnswers) is a circular sourcing .	1
Ars Technica		1 2	2012	Ars Technica is considered generally reliable for science- and technology-related articles.	1   2
arXiv		1 2 3 4 A B	2015	arXiv is a self-published source, and is generally unreliable with the exception of papers authored by established subject-matter experts. Verify whether a paper on arXiv is also published in a peer-reviewed academic journal; in these cases, cite the more reliable journal and provide an open access link to the paper (which may be hosted on arXiv).	1
Associated Press (AP)		1 2 3 4 5 6	2018	The Associated Press is a Syndicated reports from the Associated Press that are published in other sources are also considered generally reliable.	1   2
The Atlantic (The Atlantic Monthly)		1 2 3	2019	The Atlantic is considered generally reliable.	1
The A.V. Club		1 2 3 A	2014	The A.V. Club is considered generally reliable for film, music and TV reviews.	1
Baidu Baike		1 2 3 4	2018	Baidu Baike is considered generally unreliable because it is similar to an self-published source. Although edits are reviewed by Baidu administrators before they are published, most editors believe the editorial standards of Baidu Baike to be very low, and do not see any evidence of fact-checking. The Baidu 10 Mythical Creatures kuso originated from Baidu Baike.	1   2
Ballotpedia		1 2 3	2016	There is no consensus on the reliability of Ballotpedia. The site has an editorial team and accepts error corrections, but some editors do not express strong confidence in the site's editorial process. Discussions indicate that Ballotpedia used to be an user-generated content at some point. Currently, the site claims: "Ballotpedia's articles are 100 percent written by our professional staff of more than 50 writers and researchers."[1]	1
BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation)		14[c]	2019	BBC is considered generally reliable. This includes Statements of opinion should conform to the corresponding guideline.	1   2
Bellingcat		2019 1 2 3 4	2019	There is consensus that Bellingcat is generally reliable for news and should preferably be used with biased source, as it receives funding from the National Endowment for Democracy .	1
Bild		1 2	2014	Bild is a tabloid that has been unfavourably compared to The Sun. A few editors consider the source usable in some cases.	1
Biography.com		1 2 3 4	2018	There is no consensus on the reliability of Biography.com. Some editors consider the source reliable because of its backing from A&E Networks and references to the website in news media. Others point to discrepancies between information on Biography.com and on more established sources, and an unclear fact-checking process.	1
Blaze Media (BlazeTV, Conservative Review, CRTV, TheBlaze)		1 2 3	2018	Blaze Media (including TheBlaze) is considered generally unreliable for facts. In some cases, it may be usable for attributed opinions. In 2018, TheBlaze merged with Conservative Review (CRTV) to form Blaze Media.[2]	1   2
Blogger (blogspot.com)		20[d]	2019	Blogger is a living persons ; this includes interviews, as they cannot be authenticated.	1
Bloomberg (Bloomberg News, Bloomberg Businessweek)		1 2 3	2019	Bloomberg publications, including Bloomberg News and Bloomberg Businessweek, are considered generally reliable for news and business topics. See also: Bloomberg profiles.	1
Bloomberg profiles		1 2	2018	Bloomberg company and executive profiles are generally considered to be based on company press releases and should only be used as a source for uncontroversial information. There is consensus that these profiles should not be used to establish self-published sources. See also: Bloomberg .	1
Boing Boing		1 2 3	2019	There is no consensus on the reliability of Boing Boing. Although Boing Boing is a copyright law .	1
Breitbart News		2018  2018 +14[e]	2019	Due to persistent abuse, Breitbart News is on the primary source when attributing opinions, viewpoints, and commentary.	1
Business Insider (Insider, Markets Insider, Tech Insider)		1 2 3 4 5 6	2015	There is no consensus on the reliability of Business Insider. The site's syndicated content , which may not be clearly marked, should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher.	1   2   3
Bustle		2019	2019	There is consensus that the reliability of Bustle is unclear and that its reliability should be decided on an instance by instance basis. Editors noted that it has an editorial policy and that it will issue retractions. Editors also noted previous issues it had around reliability and that its content is written by freelance writers – though there is no consensus on whether this model affects their reliability.	1
BuzzFeed		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8	2018	Editors find the quality of BuzzFeed articles to be highly inconsistent. A 2014 study from the Pew Research Center found BuzzFeed to be the least trusted news source in America.[3] BuzzFeed may use A/B testing for new articles, which may cause article content to change.[4] BuzzFeed operates a separate news division, BuzzFeed News, which has higher editorial standards and is now hosted on a different website. See also: BuzzFeed News.	1
BuzzFeed News		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8	2019	There is consensus that BuzzFeed News is generally reliable. BuzzFeed News now operates separately from WP:RSOPINION. See also: BuzzFeed .	1   2
Cato Institute		1 2	2015	The Cato Institute is considered generally reliable for its opinion. Some editors consider the Cato Institute an authoritative source on attributed .	1
CelebrityNetWorth		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9	2018	There is consensus that CelebrityNetWorth is generally unreliable. CelebrityNetWorth does not disclose its methodology, and its accuracy has been criticized by The New York Times.[6]	1
Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG, Global Research, globalresearch.ca)		2019 1 2 3 4 5 6 7	2019	Due to persistent abuse, Global Research is on the parity of sources should be considered.	1   2   3
The Christian Science Monitor (CSM, CS Monitor)		20[f]	2016	The Christian Science Monitor is considered generally reliable for news.	1
CliffsNotes		1 2	2018	CliffsNotes is a study guide. Editors consider CliffsNotes usable for superficial analyses of literature, and recommend supplementing CliffsNotes citations with additional sources.	1
Climate Feedback		1 2 3	2019	Climate Feedback is a self-published source due to its high reviewer requirements.	1
CNET		16[g]	2015	CNET is considered generally reliable for technology-related articles.	1
CNN (Cable News Network)		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9	2019	There is consensus that news broadcast or published by CNN is generally reliable. However, biased , though not to the extent that it affects reliability.	1
CoinDesk		2018  2019 1 2 3	2019	There is consensus that CoinDesk should not be used to establish notability for article topics, and that it should be avoided in favor of more mainstream sources. Check CoinDesk articles for conflict of interest disclosures, and verify whether their parent company (Digital Currency Group) has an ownership stake in a company covered by CoinDesk.[7]	1
The Conversation		1 2 3	2019	The Conversation publishes articles from academics who are WP:RSOPINION .	1
Cosmopolitan		1 2 3 4 5 6	2019	There is no consensus on the reliability of Cosmopolitan. It is generally regarded as a situational source, which means context is important. The treatment of Cosmopolitan as a source should be decided on a case-by-case basis, depending on the article and the information to be verified.	1
CounterPunch		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8	2016	There is no consensus regarding the reliability of CounterPunch. As a attributed .	1
Cracked.com		1 2 3 4 5	2015	Cracked.com is a humor website. There is consensus that Cracked.com is generally unreliable. When Cracked.com cites another source for an article, it is preferable for editors to cite that source instead.	1
Crunchbase		2019 1 2	2019	In the 2019 RfC, there was consensus to deprecate Crunchbase, but also to continue allowing user-generated content .	1
The Daily Beast		1 2	2018	Past discussions regarding The Daily Beast are lacking in depth. Multiple users have expressed the opinion that it is generally reliable, citing a history of editorial oversight and the leadership of those such as living persons .	1
The Daily Caller		2019 1 2 3 4 5 6	2019	The Daily Caller was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the site publishes false or fabricated information. Most editors indicated that The Daily Caller is a attributed .	1   2
The Daily Dot		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 A	2018	The Daily Dot is considered generally reliable for Internet culture. Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article.	1
Daily Express		1 2 3	2018	The Daily Express is a tabloid with a number of similarities to the Daily Mail.	1
Daily Mail (MailOnline)		2017  2019 +37[h]	2019	The Daily Mail was deprecated in the 2017 RfC, and the decision was reaffirmed in the 2019 RfC. There is consensus that the Daily Mail (including its online version, about-self fashion . Some editors regard the Daily Mail as reliable historically, so old articles may be used in a historical context. The restriction is often incorrectly interpreted as a "ban" on the Daily Mail.	1
Daily Mirror		1 2 3	2018	The Daily Mirror is a tabloid newspaper that publishes tabloid journalism. There is no consensus on whether its reliability is comparable to other British tabloids, such as Daily Mail or The Sun .	1
Daily Star (UK)		1 2 3 4	2018	The Daily Star is a tabloid that is generally considered less reliable than the Daily Mail.	1
The Daily Telegraph (The Telegraph)		16[i]	2018	There is consensus that The Daily Telegraph (also known as The Telegraph) is generally reliable. Some editors believe that The Daily Telegraph is biased or opinionated for politics.	1
Deadline Hollywood		1 2 3 4 5 6	2019	Deadline Hollywood is considered generally reliable for entertainment-related articles.	1   2
Democracy Now!		1 2 3 4 5	2013	There is no consensus on the reliability of Democracy Now!. Most editors consider Democracy Now! a Syndicated content published by Democracy Now! should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher.	1
Deseret News		1 2 3	2016	The Deseret News is considered generally reliable for local news. It is owned by a subsidiary of primary source as an official publication of the LDS Church.	1
Digital Spy		1 2 3 4 5 A	2012	There is consensus that Digital Spy is generally reliable for entertainment and popular culture. Consider whether the information from this source constitutes due or undue weight .	1   2
Discogs		2019 1 2 3 4 5	2019	The content on Discogs is external links to the site may be appropriate.	1
Dotdash (About.com, The Balance, Lifewire, The Spruce, ThoughtCo, TripSavvy, Verywell )		14[j]	2014	Dotdash (formerly known as About.com) operates a network of websites. Editors find the quality of articles published by About.com to be inconsistent. Some editors recommend treating About.com articles as circular sourcing. In 2017, the About.com website became defunct and some of its content was moved to Dotdash's current website brands.[8][9] See also: Investopedia .	1   2   3   4   5   6   7
E! (E! News, E! Online, Entertainment Television)		1 2 3	2019	There is no consensus on the reliability of the E! television network, including its website E! Online. It is generally regarded as usable for celebrity news. Consider whether the information from this source constitutes living person .	1
The Economist		1 2 3 4	2018	Most editors consider The Economist generally reliable. The Economist publishes opinion pieces , which should be handled with the respective guidelines.	1
The Electronic Intifada (EI)		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8	2018	There is consensus that The Electronic Intifada is generally unreliable with respect to its reputation for accuracy, fact-checking, and error-correction. Almost all editors consider The Electronic Intifada a attributed .	1
Encyclopædia Britannica Online )		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10	2019	The Encyclopædia Britannica (including its online edition, secondary sources over the Encyclopædia Britannica when available. In January 2009, the Encyclopædia Britannica Online began accepting content submissions from the general public.[10] Although these submissions undergo the encyclopedia's editorial process, some editors believe that content from non-staff contributors is less reliable than the encyclopedia's staff-authored content. Content authorship is disclosed in the article history.	1
Engadget		1 A	2012	Engadget is considered generally reliable for technology-related articles.	1
Entertainment Weekly (EW)		1 2 3 A	2018	Entertainment Weekly is considered generally reliable for entertainment-related articles. There is no consensus on whether it is reliable for other topics.	1
The Epoch Times		2019 1 2 3 4 5	2019	There is no consensus on the reliability of The Epoch Times. Most editors classify The Epoch Times as an advocacy group for the undue weight to this source.	1   2
Evening Standard (London Evening Standard)		1 2 3 4 5 6	2018	There is no consensus on the reliability of the Evening Standard. Despite being a free newspaper, it is generally considered more reliable than most British tabloids and middle-market newspapers.	1
Examiner.com		2009 1 2 3 4 5 6 7	2014	Due to persistent abuse, Examiner.com is on the The San Francisco Examiner , which has moved to a different domain. Examiner.com was shut down in 2016.	1
Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR)		2010 1 2 3 4 5	2014	There is no consensus on the reliability of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. However, there is strong consensus that publications from FAIR should not be used to support opinions .	1
FamilySearch		1 2 3 4 5 6	2018	FamilySearch operates a original research .	1
Famous Birthdays		2018 1 2 3 4 5	2019	Due to persistent abuse, Famous Birthdays is on the living persons .	1
Financial Times		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8	2018	The Financial Times is considered generally reliable.	1
Find a Grave		1 2 3 4	2016	The content on Find a Grave is copyright violations .	1
Findmypast		1 2 3 4 5	2019	Findmypast is a The Wikipedia Library previously offered access to Findmypast.	1
Forbes		1 2 3 4 5	2018	Forbes and Forbes.com include articles written by their staff, which are written with editorial oversight, and are generally reliable. Forbes also publishes various "top" lists which can be referenced in articles. See also: Forbes.com contributors.	1
Forbes.com contributors		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9	2019	Most content on Forbes.com is written by generally reliable. Check the byline to determine whether an article is written by "Forbes Staff" or a "Contributor", and check underneath the byline to see whether it was published in a print issue of Forbes. Previously, Forbes.com contributor articles could be identified by their URL beginning in "forbes.com/sites"; the URL no longer distinguishes them, as Forbes staff articles have also been moved under "/sites". See also: Forbes .	1
Fox News (news and website)		2010 +18[k]	2019	Fox News news programs are produced by their News department. Shows include statements of opinion. See also: Fox News (talk shows) .	1
Fox News (talk shows)		2010 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9	2019	Fox News talk shows are produced by their Programming department. Shows include attributed. See also: Fox News (news and website) .	1
Gawker		2019 1 2 3 4 5 6 7	2019	Gawker is an inactive gossip blog that frequently published articles on rumors and speculation without named authors. When Gawker is the only source for a piece of information, the information would likely constitute living person . When another reliable source quotes information from Gawker, it is preferable to cite that source instead. In the 2019 RfC, there was no consensus on whether Gawker should be deprecated.	1
Geni.com		1 2 3 4 5	2019	original research .	1
Genius (Rap Genius)		1 2	2019	Song lyrics, annotations and descriptions on Genius are mostly WP:BLPSELFPUB , and usage of such commentary should conform to that policy.	1   2
Global Times (Huanqiu Shibao)		1 2 3	2019	The Global Times is a tabloid operated under the attributed to the Global Times itself, not to the Chinese government.	1   2
Goodreads		1 2	2018	Goodreads is a self-published source , Goodreads is considered generally unreliable.	1
Google Maps (Google Street View)		1 2 3 4 5	2017	Google Maps and Google Street View may be useful for some purposes, including finding and verifying geographic coordinates and other basic information like street names. However, especially for objects like boundaries (of neighborhoods, allotments, etc.), where other reliable sources are available they should be treated preferentially to Google Maps and Google Street View. It can also be difficult or impossible to determine the veracity of past citations, since Google Maps data is not publicly archived, and may be removed or replaced as soon as it is not current. Inferring information solely from Street View pictures may be considered original research. Note that due to restrictions on geographic data in China, OpenStreetMap coordinates for places in mainland China are almost always much more accurate than Google's – despite OpenStreetMap being user-generated – due to the severe distortion introduced by most commercial map providers. (References, in any case, are usually not required for geographic coordinates.)	1   2
TheGuardian.com , The Manchester Guardian, The Observer)		15[l]	2019	There is consensus that The Guardian is generally reliable. The Guardian's op-eds should be handled with biased or opinionated for politics. See also: The Guardian blogs .	1   2   3
The Guardian blogs		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9	2019	Most editors say that The Guardian blogs should be treated as opinion pieces due to reduced editorial oversight. Check the bottom of the article for a "blogposts" tag to determine whether the page is a blog post or a non-blog article. See also: The Guardian .	1   2   3
Haaretz (Ḥadashot Ha'aretz)		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9	2018	Haaretz is considered generally reliable. Some editors believe that Haaretz reports with a political slant, particularly with respect to the opinion pieces should be handled with the appropriate guideline.	1   2
UK Parliament transcripts, House of Commons, House of Lords )		1 2 3 4	2019	As a transcript of parliament proceedings in the United Kingdom, Hansard is a secondary source as it merely contains the personal opinions of whoever is speaking in Parliament that day, and is subject to Parliamentary privilege . Hansard is not a word-for-word transcript and may omit repetitions and redundancies.	1   2   3   4   5   6
Heat Street		1 2	2017	Although Heat Street was owned by due weight must be considered because Heat Street covers many political topics not as talked about in higher-profile sources.	1
Heavy.com		1 2	2019	There is consensus that Heavy.com should not be relied upon for any serious or contentious statements, including dates of birth. When Heavy.com cites another source for their own article, it is preferable to cite the original source instead.	1
The Hill		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10	2019	The Hill is considered generally reliable for American politics. The publication's self-published sources .	1
HispanTV		2019	2019	HispanTV was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed overwhelming consensus that the TV channel is generally unreliable and sometimes broadcasts outright fabrications. Editors listed multiple examples of HispanTV broadcasting conspiracy theories and Iranian propaganda .	1   2
The Hollywood Reporter (THR)		1 2 3 4 5	2018	There is consensus that The Hollywood Reporter is generally reliable for entertainment-related topics, including its articles and reviews on film, TV and music, as well as its box office figures.	1
Hope not Hate (Searchlight)		2018 1 2 3 4 5	2019	Most commenters declined to make a general statement about publications from Hope not Hate. Reliability should be assessed on a case by case basis, while taking context into account. Because they are an advocacy group, they are a attributed .	1   2
HuffPost (The Huffington Post)		17[m]	2019	There is no consensus on the reliability of HuffPost. As HuffPost is a newer publication, some editors prefer to use reliable sources with more established reputations. Some editors believe the site reports with a political slant, which makes it syndicated content should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher. See also: HuffPost contributors .	1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16
HuffPost contributors		17[n]	2018	HuffPost includes content written by subject-matter expert. In 2018, HuffPost discontinued its contributor platform, but old contributor articles are still online.[12] Check the byline to determine whether an article is written by a staff member or a "Contributor" (also referred to as an "Editorial Partner"). See also: HuffPost .	1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16
Human Events		1 2 3	2019	Editors consider Human Events attributed. In May 2019, a former editor-in-chief of Breitbart News became the editor-in-chief of Human Events; articles published after the leadership change are considered generally unreliable. There is no consensus on the reliability of Human Events's older content.	1
Idolator		1 2 3 4 5	2017	There is consensus that Idolator is generally reliable for popular music. Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article.	1
IMDb (Internet Movie Database)		2019 +15[o]	2019	The content on IMDb is WP:ELP ).	1
The Independent		1 2 3	2019	The Independent, a British newspaper, is considered a reliable source for non-specialist information. In March 2016, the publication discontinued its print edition to become an online newspaper; some editors advise caution for articles published after this date.	1
Independent Journal Review (IJR)		1 2 3	2018	There is no consensus on the reliability of the Independent Journal Review. Posts from "community" members are considered syndicated stories from Reuters , and citations of these stories should preferably point to Reuters.	1
Independent Media Center (Indymedia, IMC)		1 2	2019	The self-published source .	1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17
InfoWars (NewsWars)		2018  2018  2018 1	2018	Due to persistent abuse, InfoWars is on both the secondary source in articles.	1   2   3   4
Inter Press Service (IPS)		1 2	2011	The Inter Press Service is a news agency. There is consensus that the Inter Press Service is generally reliable for news.	1   2   3
The Intercept		1 2	2019	There is consensus that The Intercept is generally reliable for news. Almost all editors consider The Intercept a attributed. For science, editors prefer peer-reviewed journals over news sources like The Intercept.	1
International Business Times (IBT, IBTimes)		1 2 3 4 5 6 7	2019	There is consensus that the International Business Times is generally unreliable. Editors note that the publication's editorial practices have been criticized by other reliable sources, and point to the inconsistent quality of the site's articles. The site's syndicated content , which may not be clearly marked, should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher.	1   2   3   4   5   6
Investopedia		1 2 3	2018	Investopedia is owned by tertiary source. See also: Dotdash .	1
JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association )		1 2	2018	JAMA is a WP:MEDRS .	1
Jezebel		1 2 3	2016	There is consensus that Jezebel should generally be avoided as a source, especially on biased or opinionated .	1
Know Your Meme (KYM)		1 2 3 4	2013	Know Your Meme "submissions" are user-generated content and thus are generally unreliable. There is no consensus on the reliability of their video series and "confirmed" entries.	1
Last.fm		2019 1	2019	Last.fm was deprecated in the 2019 RfC. The content on Last.fm is user-generated , and is considered generally unreliable.	1
LifeSiteNews (Campaign Life Coalition)		2019 1 2 3 4	2019	LifeSiteNews was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the site publishes false or fabricated information.	1
LiveJournal		1 2 3	2012	LiveJournal is a living persons .	1
Los Angeles Times		1 2 3 4 5 6	2016	Most editors consider the Los Angeles Times generally reliable. Refer to WP:NEWSBLOG for the newspaper's blog.	1
Lulu.com (Lulu Press)		2008 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9	2019	Due to persistent abuse, Lulu.com is on the subject-matter expert. Occasionally, a reputable publisher uses Lulu.com as a printer ; in this case, cite the original publisher instead of Lulu.com.	1
Marquis Who's Who (Who's Who in America)		1 2 3 4 5	2017	Marquis Who's Who, including its publication Who's Who in America, is considered generally unreliable. As most of its content is provided by the person concerned, editors generally consider Marquis Who's Who comparable to a notability for article topics. See also: Who's Who (UK) .	1   2
The Mary Sue		1 2 A B	2016	There is no consensus on the reliability of The Mary Sue. It is generally regarded as usable for reviews and opinion , though not for its reblogged content.	1
Media Bias/Fact Check		1 2 3	2019	There is consensus that Media Bias/Fact Check is generally unreliable. Editors have questioned the methodology of the site's ratings.	1
Media Matters for America (MMfA)		2010  2019 +10[p]	2019	There is no consensus on the reliability of Media Matters for America. As a attributed .	1
MRCTV , NewsBusters)		2010 1 2 3	2017	There is no consensus on the reliability of Media Research Center publications, including NewsBusters. As a attributed .	1   2   3   4
Mediaite		1 2 3	2019	There is some consensus that Mediaite is only marginally reliable, and should be avoided where better sources are available. Editors consider the source to inappropriately blur news and opinion, and due weight should be considered if no other reliable sources support a given statement.	1
Medium		1 2 3	2019	Medium is a living persons .	1
MetalSucks		1 2 A	2018	MetalSucks is considered usable for its reviews and news articles. Avoid its overly satirical content and exercise caution when MetalSucks is the only source making a statement.	1
Metro (British newspaper)		1 2 3 4 5 6 7	2017	The reliability of Metro has been compared to that of the Daily Mail and other British tabloids. Articles published in the print newspaper (accessible via metro.news domain) are considered more reliable than articles published only on the metro.co.uk website.	1   2
MintPress News		2019	2019	MintPress News was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the site publishes false or fabricated information.	1
Mondoweiss		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8	2019	Mondoweiss is a news website operated by the Center for Economic Research and Social Change (CERSC), an advocacy organization. There is no consensus on the reliability of Mondoweiss. Editors consider the site attributed .	1
Morning Star (UK)		1 2 3 A B	2019	The Morning Star is a British tabloid with a low circulation and readership that the biographies of living persons policy.	1
Mother Jones (MoJo)		1 2 3 4 5	2019	There is consensus that Mother Jones is generally reliable. Almost all editors consider Mother Jones a due weight before citing it in an article.	1
MyLife (Reunion.com)		2019  2019 1	2019	Due to persistent abuse, MyLife is on the user-generated content , and is considered generally unreliable.	1   2
The Nation		1 2 3 4 5 6	2009	There is consensus that The Nation is generally reliable. Most editors consider The Nation a biographies of living persons policy.	1
National Enquirer		2019 1 2 3 4 5 6	2019	The National Enquirer is a edit filter to warn editors against using the publication.	1
National Review (NR)		1 2 3 4 5 6	2018	There is no consensus on the reliability of National Review. Most editors consider National Review a biographies of living persons policy.	1
Natural News (NewsTarget)		2019 1 A B	2019	Due to persistent abuse, Natural News is on the whitelisted before they can be used. There is a near-unanimous consensus that the site repeatedly publishes false or fabricated information, including a large number of conspiracy theories .	1   2
New York (Vulture, The Cut, Grub Street, Daily Intelligencer)		1 2 3 4	2016	There is consensus that New York magazine, including its subsidiary publication Vulture, is generally reliable. There is no consensus on whether it is generally reliable for contentious statements.	1   2   3   4
New York Daily News (Illustrated Daily News)		1 2 3	2017	There is no consensus regarding the reliability of the New York Daily News. The New York Daily News is a tabloid newspaper that publishes tabloid journalism.	1
New York Post (New York Evening Post, Page Six)		1 2 3 4 5	2019	There is no consensus regarding the reliability of the New York Post. The New York Post is a tabloid newspaper with high circulation, and most editors prefer more reliable sources when available. The New York Post operates Page Six, its gossip section.	1   2
The New York Times (NYT)		2018 +33[q]	2019	Most editors consider The New York Times generally reliable. WP:MEDPOP to establish that popular press sources such as The New York Times should generally not be used to support medical claims .	1
The New Yorker		1 2	2011	There is consensus that The New Yorker is generally reliable. Editors note the publication's robust fact-checking process.	1
Newsmax		1 2	2013	Discussions regarding Newsmax are dated, with the most recent occurring in 2013. Circumstances may have changed. Discussions are also lacking in depth, and in focus on evaluating this source specifically. Newsmax has been cited in discussions of other sources as a low benchmark for a partisan outlet with regard to US politics, and for a propensity for comparatively fringe viewpoints.	1
Newsweek		2019 1 2 3 4 5 6 7	2019	There is consensus that Newsweek is generally reliable for news. Blogs under Newsweek, including The Gaggle, should be handled with the WP:NEWSBLOG policy. From 2013 to 2018, Newsweek was owned by IBT Media, the parent company of International Business Times ; its articles from this time period should be scrutinized more carefully.	1
The Next Web (TNW)		1 2 3 4	2019	There is no consensus on the reliability of The Next Web. Articles written by sponsored content .	1
NNDB (Notable Names Database)		2019 1 2 3 4	2019	NNDB is a biographical database operated by Soylent Communications, the parent company of circular sourcing .	1
Occupy Democrats		2018	2018	In the 2018 RfC, there was clear consensus to deprecate Occupy Democrats as a source a la the primary source for attributing opinions, viewpoints, and the like.	1
The Onion		1 2	2019	The Onion is a satirical news website, and should not be used as a source for facts.	1
Patheos		1 2 3	2015	Patheos is a website that hosts a collection of blogs. These blogs receive little editorial oversight and should be treated as self-published sources . Some editors have shown support for including Patheos articles as a source when cited together with other more reliable sources.	1
People		2013 1 2 3 4	2014	There is consensus that People magazine can be a reliable source in biographies of living persons , but the magazine should not be used for contentious facts.	1
Pew Research Center		1 2	2012	There is consensus that the Pew Research Center is generally reliable.	1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8
PinkNews (Pink News)		1 2	2011	There is no consensus on the reliability of PinkNews. It is generally regarded as biased or opinionated .	1
Playboy		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8	2015	There is consensus that Playboy is generally reliable. Editors note the publication's reputation for high-quality interviews and fact-checking.	1
The Points Guy (news and reviews) (TPG)		2018  2019 A B C	2019	There is no consensus on the reliability of news articles and reviews on The Points Guy. The Points Guy has advertising relationships with credit card and travel companies, and content involving these companies should be avoided as sources. The Points Guy is currently on the whitelisted before they can be used. See also: The Points Guy (sponsored content) .	1   2
The Points Guy (sponsored content) (TPG)		2018  2019 A B C	2019	There is consensus that sponsored content on The Points Guy, including content involving credit cards, should not be used as sources. The Points Guy has advertising relationships with credit card and travel companies, receiving compensation from readers signing up for credit cards via the website's links. The Points Guy is currently on the whitelisted before they can be used. See also: The Points Guy (news and reviews) .	1
Politico		1 2 3 4 5 6	2018	Politico is considered generally reliable for American politics. A small number of editors say that Politico is a biased source.	1
PolitiFact (PunditFact)		2016  2019	2019	PolitiFact is a reliable source for reporting the veracity of statements made by political candidates. PolitiFact is a reliable source for reporting the percentage of false statements made by a political candidate (of the statements checked by PolitiFact), provided that attribution is given, as a primary source.	1
Press TV		1 2 3 4 5 6	2019	There is consensus that Press TV is generally unreliable. As a conspiracy theories, including Holocaust denial.[14]	1   2
Quackwatch		2019 +13[r]	2019	Quackwatch is a parity of sources should be considered.	1
Quadrant		2019	2019	Most editors consider Quadrant generally unreliable for factual reporting. The publication is a biased and opinionated source .	1
Quillette		1 2 3	2019	There is consensus that Quillette is generally unreliable for facts. Opinions from Quillette are likely to constitute undue weight .	1
Quora		1 2 3 4	2019	Quora is a policy on self-published sources .	1
Rate Your Music (RYM, Cinemos, Glitchwave, Sonemic)		2019 1 A	2019	Rate Your Music was deprecated in the 2019 RfC. The content on Rate Your Music is user-generated , and is considered generally unreliable.	1   2   3   4
The Register (El Reg)		1 2 3 4 5 A	2017	The Register is considered generally reliable for technology-related articles. Some editors say that The Register is biased or opinionated on topics involving Wikipedia .	1
ResearchGate		1 2 3	2019	ResearchGate is a social network that hosts a repository of self-published source. Verify whether a paper on ResearchGate is also published in a peer-reviewed academic journal; in these cases, cite the more reliable journal and provide an open access link to the paper (which may be hosted on ResearchGate).	1
Reuters		1 2 3	2018	Reuters is a Syndicated reports from Reuters that are published in other sources are also considered generally reliable. Press releases published by Reuters are not automatically reliable.	1
RhythmOne (AllMusic, AllMovie, AllGame, All Media Guide, AllRovi)		25[s]	2019	RhythmOne (who acquired All Media Guide, formerly AllRovi) operates the websites notability .	1   2   3
RIA Novosti		1 2 3 4	2016	RIA Novosti is an official news agency of the Russian government. There is a broad consensus that it is a biased and opinionated source. It is generally considered usable for official government statements and positions. There is no consensus on whether it is reliable for other topics, though opinions generally lean towards unreliability. See also: Sputnik , which replaced the international edition of RIA Novosti.	1   2
Rolling Stone		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9	2019	There is consensus that Rolling Stone is generally reliable. Rolling Stone's attributed .	1
Rotten Tomatoes		1 2 3 4 A	2014	Rotten Tomatoes is considered generally reliable for its review aggregation and its news articles on film and TV. There is no consensus on whether its blog articles and critic opinion pages are generally reliable for facts. There is consensus that user reviews on Rotten Tomatoes are generally unreliable, as they are self-published sources . Reviewers tracked by Rotten Tomatoes are not automatically reliable for their reviews, while there is no consensus on whether their "Top Critics" are generally reliable.	1
RT (general topics) (Russia Today)		1 2 3 4 5 6	2018	There is no consensus on the reliability of RT (formerly Russia Today). Well-established news outlets are normally considered reliable for statements of fact. However, RT is frequently described as a mouthpiece of the Russian government that engages in propaganda and disinformation, conspiracy theories.[26] It is not generally reliable for topics that are controversial or related to international politics. The only discussion that was formally closed (discussion #3) examined whether RT is acceptable in more general circumstances and found no consensus.[27] See also: RT (controversial topics, international politics) .	1
RT (controversial topics, international politics) (Russia Today)		1 2 3 4 5 6	2018	RT is generally unreliable for topics that are controversial or related to international politics. See also: RT (general topics).	1
Salon		1 2 3	2018	There is no consensus on the reliability of Salon. Editors consider Salon attributed .	1
Science-Based Medicine		2019 1 2	2019	Science-Based Medicine is considered generally reliable, as it has a credible editorial board, publishes a robust set of editorial guidelines, and has been cited by other reliable sources. Editors do not consider Science-Based Medicine a parity of sources may be relevant.	1
ScienceBlogs		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A	2012	ScienceBlogs is an invitation-only network of blogs. There is no consensus on the reliability of ScienceBlogs articles in general, or whether it is a subject-matter experts reliable, though articles outside the writer's relevant field are not.	1
Scribd		1 2 3 4	2016	Scribd operates a self-publishing platform for documents and audiobooks. It is considered generally unreliable, especially for WP:COPYVIO policy. If a particular document hosted on the platform is in itself reliable, editors are advised to cite the source without linking to the Scribd entry.	1
The Skeptic's Dictionary		1 2 3	2008	The Skeptic's Dictionary is considered generally reliable. parity of sources may be relevant.	1
Snopes		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13	2019	Snopes is considered generally reliable. parity of sources may be relevant.	1
Softpedia		1 2 A	2019	Softpedia is considered reliable for its software and product reviews. There is no consensus on whether Softpedia news articles are generally reliable.	1
Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)		15[t]	2019	The Southern Poverty Law Center is considered generally reliable on topics related to biographies of living persons policy. Some editors have questioned the reliability of the SPLC on non-United States topics.	1
SparkNotes		1 2	2018	SparkNotes is a study guide. Editors consider SparkNotes usable for superficial analyses of literature, and recommend supplementing SparkNotes citations with additional sources.	1
The Spectator		1 2 3 4	2018	Most editors consider The Spectator (not to be confused with the unrelated partisan source with regard to UK politics.	1
Spiegel Online , SPON)		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10	2018	There is consensus that Der Spiegel is generally reliable. Articles written by Claas Relotius are generally unreliable as this particular journalist has been found to fabricate articles.	1
Sputnik		1 2 3	2018	There is clear consensus that Sputnik News is generally unreliable. Sputnik is considered a Russian propaganda outlet that engages in bias and disinformation,[28] with some editors considering it less reliable than Breitbart News. Some editors consider Sputnik a reliable source for official Russian government statements and positions. See also: RIA Novosti, whose international edition was replaced by Sputnik.	1
Stack Exchange (Stack Overflow, MathOverflow, Ask Ubuntu)		1 2 A	2018	Stack Exchange is a network of user-generated content , and is considered generally unreliable.	1   2   3   4   5   6
The Sun (UK) (The Sun on Sunday, The Irish Sun, The Scottish Sun)		2019 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10	2019	The Sun was deprecated in the 2019 RfC. There is consensus that The Sun is generally unreliable. WP:ABOUTSELF , which allows the use of The Sun for uncontroversial self-descriptions. Some editors consider The Sun usable for uncontroversial sports reporting, although more reliable sources are recommended.	1   2   3
Taki's Magazine (Takimag, Taki's Top Drawer)		2019 1	2019	Taki's Magazine was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that it is an unreliable opinion magazine that should be avoided outside of very limited exceptions (e.g. WP:ABOUTSELF ).	1
TASS (ТАСС, ITAR-TASS, Telegraph Agency of the Soviet Union)		2019	2019	In the 2019 RfC, editors argued that the reliability of TASS varies based on the subject matter. Editors consider TASS fairly reliable for statements of fact as stated by the Russian government, but also agree that there are deficiencies in the reliability of TASS's reporting on other issues.	1   2
TechCrunch		1 2 3 4 5	2018	Careful consideration should be given to whether a piece is written by staff or as a part of their blog, as well as whether the piece/writer may have a conflict of interest, and to what extent they rely on public relations material from their subject for their writing. TechCrunch may be useful for satisfying notability .	1
Telesur		2019 1 2	2019	Telesur was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the TV channel is a attributed .	1   2
TheWrap		1 2	2017	As an industry trade publication, there is consensus that TheWrap is a good source for entertainment news and media analysis. There is no consensus regarding the reliability of TheWrap's articles on other topics.	1
ThinkProgress		2013 1	2013	Discussions of ThinkProgress are dated, with the most recent in 2013. Circumstances may have changed. Some consider ThinkProgress a form of partisan source for the purposes of US politics.	1
Time		1 2 3 4 5	2019	There is consensus that Time is generally reliable. Time's attribution .	1
The Times (The Sunday Times, The Times of London)		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A	2015	The Times, including its sister paper The Sunday Times, is considered generally reliable.	1   2   3
TMZ		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13	2016	There is no consensus on the reliability of TMZ. Although TMZ is cited by reliable sources, most editors consider TMZ a low-quality source and prefer more reliable sources when available. Because TMZ frequently publishes articles on rumors and speculation without named authors, it is recommended to living person .	1
TorrentFreak (TF)		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8	2019	Most editors consider TorrentFreak generally reliable on topics involving file sharing. Editors note references to the website in mainstream media. The source may or may not be reliable for other topics.	1
Townhall		1 2	2010	As of 2010, a few editors commented that opinion pieces in Townhall are reliable as a source for the opinion of the author of the individual piece, although they may not be reliable for WP:DUEWEIGHT .	1
TRT World		2019	2019	Consensus exists that TRT World is reliable for statements regarding the official views of the Turkish government but not reliable for subjects with which the Turkish government could be construed to have a conflict of interest. For other miscellaneous cases, it shall be assumed to be reliable enough.	1
The Truth About Guns (TTAG)		1 2 3	2019	The Truth About Guns is a undue weight .	1
Tunefind		1 2	2019	Tunefind is almost entirely composed of self-published source .	1
TV Guide		1 2	2012	TV Guide is considered generally reliable for television-related topics. Some editors consider TV Guide a primary source for air dates.	1   2
TV Tropes		1 2	2016	TV Tropes is considered generally unreliable because it is an self-published source .	1
Twitter		34[u]	2019	Twitter is a social network. As a living persons .	1
Urban Dictionary		1 2	2009	Urban Dictionary is considered generally unreliable, because it consists solely of user-generated content .	1
Us Weekly		1 2 3 4 5	2018	There is no consensus on the reliability of Us Weekly. It is often considered less reliable than People magazine.	1
Vanity Fair		1 2	2019	Vanity Fair is considered generally reliable for popular culture.	1
Variety		1 2 3 4 5	2016	As an entertainment trade magazine, Variety is considered a reliable source in its field.	1
VDARE		2018 1	2019	VDARE was deprecated in the 2018 RfC. Editors agree that it is generally unusable as a source, although there may be rare exceptions such as in identifying its writers in an about-self fashion . Such limited instances will only be under careful and guided ("filtered") discretion.	1
Venezuelanalysis		2019 1 A B	2019	There is consensus that Venezuelanalysis is generally unreliable. Some editors consider Venezuelanalysis a attributed .	1
VentureBeat		1 2	2011	VentureBeat is considered generally reliable for business- and technology-related articles.	1
The Verge		2018 1	2019	There is broad consensus that The Verge is a reliable source for use in articles relating to technology, science, and automobiles. Some editors question the quality of The Verge's instructional content on computer hardware .	1
VGChartz		2019 A B C D E F G H I	2019	In the 2019 RfC, editors unanimously agreed that VGChartz is generally unreliable. The site consists mainly of news articles that qualify as The NPD Group, Chart-Track, and/or Media Create ), it is strongly advised that editors cite those sources instead.	1
Garage, i-D, Refinery29, Vice, Vice News )		1 2 3 4 5 6	2019	There is no consensus on the reliability of Vice Media publications.	1   2
Vogue		1 2 3 4	2018	Vogue is considered generally reliable. Potentially contentious statements made by Vogue interview subjects can be attributed to the individual.	1
Vox (Recode)		1 2 3	2017	Vox is considered generally reliable. It is often considered a partisan source , particularly regarding American politics.	1
The Wall Street Journal (WSJ)		1 2 3 4 5	2019	Most editors consider The Wall Street Journal generally reliable for news. Use WP:RSOPINION for opinion pieces.	1
Washington Examiner		1 2 3 4 5 6	2019	There is no consensus on the reliability of the Washington Examiner, but there is consensus that it should not be used to substantiate opinion columns , which should be handled with the appropriate guideline.	1
The Washington Post (WaPo)		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13	2019	Most editors consider The Washington Post generally reliable. Some editors note that WP:NEWSBLOG should be used to evaluate blog posts on The Washington Post's website.	1
The Washington Times		1 2 3	2019	There is consensus that The Washington Times is marginally reliable, and should be avoided when more reliable sources are available. The Washington Times is considered partisan for US politics, especially with regard to climate change and US race relations .	1
The Weekly Standard		1 2 3	2014	The Weekly Standard is considered generally reliable, but much of their published content is partisan source .	1
The Western Journal (Western Journalism)		2019 1	2019	In the 2019 RfC, there was consensus that The Western Journal is generally unreliable, but no consensus on whether The Western Journal should be deprecated. The publication's syndicated content should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher.	1
Who's Who (UK)		1 2 3	2019	There is no consensus on the reliability of Who's Who UK. It is a reference work with information mainly collected from the people concerned. Editors are divided on whether sufficient editorial control exists, and whether it is an independent source. It is generally considered more reliable than Marquis Who's Who, which is published in the United States. See also: Marquis Who's Who .	1
WhoSampled		1 2	2016	WhoSampled is almost entirely composed of self-published source .	1
Wikia (Fandom)		1 2 3 4 5	2016	Wikia (including Fandom) is considered generally unreliable because policies and guidelines after copying.	1
Wikidata		2013 2018 1 2	2018	Wikidata is largely user-generated, and articles should not directly cite Wikidata as a source (just as it would be inappropriate to cite other Wikipedias' articles as sources). See also: Wikidata transcluded statements.	1
Wikidata transcluded statements		2013 2018 1 2	2018	Uniquely among WMF sites, Wikidata's statements can be directly transcluded into articles; this is usually done to provide external links or infobox data. For example, more than two million external links from Wikidata are shown through the {{Authority control}} template. There has been controversy over the use of Wikidata in the English Wikipedia due to its infancy, its vandalism issues and its sourcing. While there is no consensus on whether information from Wikidata should be used at all, there is general agreement that any Wikidata statements transcluded need to be just as – or more – reliable compared to Wikipedia content. As such, Module:WikidataIB and some related modules and templates filter unsourced Wikidata statements by default; however, other modules and templates, such as Module:Wikidata, do not. See also: Wikidata (direct citations).	—
WikiLeaks		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12	2018	WikiLeaks is a repository of WP:COPYLINK .	1
Wikinews		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8	2012	Most editors believe that Wikinews articles do not meet Wikipedia's self-published source , which is generally unreliable.	1
Wikipedia		15[v]	2018	WP:COPYWITHIN for instructions.	1
Wired (Wired UK)		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A	2018	Wired magazine is considered generally reliable for science and technology.	1   2
WordPress.com		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13	2018	WordPress.com is a living persons ; this includes interviews, as they cannot be authenticated.	1
WorldNetDaily (WND)		2018 +16[w]	2018	WorldNetDaily was deprecated in the 2018 RfC. There is clear consensus that WorldNetDaily is not a reliable source, and that it should not be used because of its particularly poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The website is known for promoting falsehoods and syndicated content should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher, and the citation should preferably point to the original publisher.	1   2
YouTube		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9	2019	Most videos on YouTube are anonymous, WP:VIDEOLINK .	1
ZDNet		1 2 3 4 5 6 7	2018	ZDNet is considered generally reliable for technology-related articles.	1
Zero Hedge		1 2 3	2019	Zero Hedge is considered generally unreliable due to its propagation of biased or opinionated .	1
Legend reliable sources noticeboard . Italic numbers represent active discussions (all discussions that are not closed or archived) on the reliable sources noticeboard. Letters represent discussions outside of the reliable sources noticeboard.

External links

• Google custom search of generally reliable sources listed on this page
• Google custom search for generally reliable sources for video games