Wikipedia:Deprecated sources
This is an information page. It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines; rather, its purpose is to explain certain aspects of Wikipedia's norms, customs, technicalities, or practices. It may reflect differing levels of consensus and vetting. |
This page in a nutshell: The questionable sources from articles, except in special cases. |
Deprecated sources are highly
Deprecation is a formalization that arises from Wikipedia’s normal processes for evaluating sources. It primarily exists to save time by avoiding the endless discussion of the same issues, and to raise awareness among editors of the status of the sources in question. For example, if editors are unfamiliar with either the specific sources or the
Since there are an endless number of poor sources, there are also an endless number of sources that would be deprecated if we bothered to have discussions on them. These sources have always been de facto deprecated as a normal result of our policies and guidelines that try to ensure that we use reputable sources. A discussion that results in deprecation may involve a change or clarification of
Deprecated sources should not be considered to be either unique or uniquely unreliable. They may be those that are most often cited by unaware editors, or those that come up in discussion the most often – for example, due to real-world controversy, borderline reliability, or a tendency to be promoted on-wiki despite a lack of reliability. Since there are many reasons that a source may be unreliable, the specific reasons for deprecation vary from case to case. The first source to be formally deprecated was the
Deprecating a source is different from blocking the source (
Effects of deprecation
Deprecated sources are restricted in three ways, most of which were discussed in the 2017 Daily Mail RfC:
- The source is designated as generally unreliable.
- reliable sourcesexist. Images and quotations should also be avoided, since they can be manipulated or fabricated. If the source contains material that cannot be found in more reliable sources, it may be valid to assume that the material in question is incorrect. The source may only be used when there is a demonstrable need to use it instead of other sources.
- The source is no longer used to determine notability.
- Typically, the source is listed on unregistered usersand accounts under seven days old. This behavior is subject to restrictions, which are described in the lists themselves.
- Typically, an warn" is implemented, which displays a message to editors having contributed more than 7 days and who are attempting to cite the source in an article, notifying them of the existing consensus and asking them if they want to proceed. At this point, the editor may choose to cancel the edit, or dismiss the warning and complete the edit.
- This measure is implemented through filter 869 (hist · log), which marks all edits that trigger the filter with the "use of deprecated (unreliable) source" tag.
Deprecated sources with few valid use cases may be blocked due to persistent abuse. This involves the source being added to the
Acceptable uses of deprecated sources
Deprecation is not a blanket retroactive "ban" on using the source in absolutely every situation, contrary to what has been reported in media headlines.
Looking forward, however, the addition of new references from deprecated sources is extremely rare. Deprecated sources can normally be cited as a
Additional exceptions may be specific to individual sources as summarized in the RfC: for example, the 2017 closure of the Daily Mail RfC mentioned that participants said it may have been more reliable historically.
What deprecation is and isn't
Deprecation is a status indicating that a source almost always falls below Wikipedia's
Deprecating a source is a weaker measure than blocking or banning it, and the terms are not comparable to each other. Wikipedia's equivalent to blocking is blacklisting, which is an entirely separate mechanism, and websites are usually only blacklisted if they are involved in
How does a source become deprecated?
To start a discussion on deprecation, start a
In general, a source that is proposed for deprecation should be either frequently used or frequently discussed. Additionally, in order to prevent
What sources are de facto deprecated?
Any source that fails the
Currently deprecated sources
Since each source proposed for deprecation has to be discussed separately, we cannot formally deprecate all possible sources that deserve it. As described above, the fact that an unreliable source is listed here does not make it inherently different from an unreliable source that is not listed here.
Source | Date of deprecation | RfC
|
Auto-reverted | Edit-filtered | Black-listed | Notes | Uses |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Al Mayadeen | 17 November 2023 | 2023 | 2023 | 2023 | Some editors consider it to misrepresent sources and lie, some describe it as propaganda. | 1 | |
ANNA News (Abkhazian Network News Agency, Analytical Network News Agency) | 21 March 2022 | 2022 | 2022 | 2022 | 1 | ||
Baidu Baike | 4 August 2020 | 2020 | 2020 | 2020 | Unacceptable as it is a user-generated site similar to Wikipedia. | ||
bestgore.com | 24 April 2021 | 2021 | 2021 | 1 | |||
Breitbart News | 25 September 2018 | 2018 | 2018 | 1 2 | |||
China Global Television Network (CGTN, CCTV International) | 15 September 2020 | 2020 | 2020 | 2020 | 1 | ||
The Cradle | 5 January 2024 | 2024 | 2024 | 2024 | 1 | ||
Crunchbase | 18 March 2019 | 2019 | 2019 | 2021 | Crunchbase is only listed on ref tags in addition to meeting the standard criteria.
|
1 | |
The Daily Caller | 13 February 2019 | 2019 | 2019 | 2019 | 1 2 3 | ||
Daily Mail (MailOnline) | 8 February 2017 | 2017 2019 2020 | 2018 | 6[a] | The Daily Mail was the first source to be deprecated on Wikipedia. The decision was challenged and upheld in the 2019 RfC. This deprecation also includes the newspaper's website, MailOnline. Editors note that the Daily Mail may have been more reliable historically. | ||
Daily Star (UK) | 21 September 2020 | 2020 | 2020 | 2020 | 1 2 | ||
Vision Times, Vision China Times )
|
6 December 2019 | 2019 | 2019 | 2020 2023 2023 | |||
FrontPage Magazine (FPM, FrontPageMag.com) | 18 July 2020 | 2020 | 2020 | 2020 | 1 2 | ||
The Gateway Pundit (TGP) | 21 November 2019 | 2019 | 2019 | 2020 | 1 | ||
Global Times (Huanqiu Shibao) | 4 September 2020 | 2020 | 2020 | 2020 | Near unanimous consensus that Global Times publishes false or fabricated information, conspiracy theories, and propaganda promoting the Chinese government. | 1 2 | |
The Grayzone | 8 March 2020 | 2020 | 2020 | 2020 | 1 | ||
HispanTV | 19 May 2019 | 2019 | 2019 | 2020 | 1 2 | ||
Healthline | 5 July 2023 | 2023 | 2023 | 1 | |||
InfoWars (NewsWars) | 30 August 2018 | 2018 | 2018 2018 |
||||
Jihad Watch | 20 January 2021 | 2021 | 2021 | 2021 | 1 | ||
Last.fm | 23 February 2019 | 2019 | 2019 | 2020 | 1 | ||
Lenta.ru (12 March 2014–present) | 21 December 2019 | 2019 | 2020 | There is currently no consensus on the reliability of Lenta.ru prior to 12 March 2014. | 1 | ||
LifeSiteNews (Campaign Life Coalition) | 4 July 2019 | 2019 | 2019 | 2019 2021 | 1 2 | ||
The Mail on Sunday | 16 November 2020 | 2020 | 2020 | 2020 | |||
MintPress News | 4 July 2019 | 2019 | 2019 2022 |
2020 2022 | |||
National Enquirer | 17 March 2019 | 2019 | 2019 | There is no consensus to implement an edit filter for the National Enquirer. | 1 | ||
New Eastern Outlook | 19 May 2022 | 2022 | 2022 | 2022 | 1 | ||
News Break
|
1 July 2020 | 2020 | 2020 | 2020 | News Break is a news aggregator that publishes snippets of articles from other sources. In the 2020 RfC, there was consensus to deprecate News Break in favor of the original sources. | 1 | |
NewsBlaze | 16 September 2021 | 2021 | 2021 | 2022 | 1 2 | ||
News of the World | 4 December 2019 | 2019 | 2019 | 2020 | Some editors consider News of the World to be reliable for film reviews. | 1 2 | |
Newsmax | 20 November 2020 | 2020 | 2020 | 2020 | 1 2 | ||
NNDB (Notable Names Database) | 23 February 2019 | 2019 | 2019 | 2020 | 1 | ||
Occupy Democrats (Washington Press) | 25 September 2018 | 2018 | 2018 2023 |
2020 2023 | 1 2 | ||
One America News Network (OANN) | 21 December 2019 | 2019 | 2019 | 2020 | 1 | ||
self-published )
|
26 May 2020 | 2020 2020 | 2020 | 2020 2020 | See the list of sites at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Self-published peerage websites. | ||
Press TV | 24 June 2021 | 2021 | 2021 | 2021 | |||
Project Veritas (James O'Keefe, O'Keefe Media Group) | 26 July 2023 | 2023 | 2023 | 2023 | 2021 | The deprecation includes all content by James O'Keefe in any medium. | 1 2 |
Rate Your Music (RYM, Cinemos, Glitchwave, Sonemic) | 23 February 2019 | 2019 | 2019 | 2020 | |||
Republic TV (Republic World) | 26 October 2021 | 2021 | 2021 | 2021 | 1 2 | ||
Royal Central | 11 September 2022 | 2022 | 2022 | 2022 | 1 | ||
RT (Russia Today, ANO TV-Novosti, Ruptly, Redfish, Maffick) | 27 May 2020 | 2020 | 2020 2022 2024 |
4[b] | |||
Sputnik | 6 June 2020 | 2020 | 2020 2022 2023 |
8[c] | |||
The Sun (UK) (The Sun on Sunday, The Irish Sun, The Scottish Sun, The U.S. Sun) | 18 January 2019 | 2019 | 2019 | 2020 2020 2021 | Some editors consider The Sun to be reliable for sports reporting. | ||
Taki's Magazine (Takimag, Taki's Top Drawer) | 3 October 2019 | 2019 | 2019 | 2020 | 1 | ||
Telesur | 31 March 2019 | 2019 | 2019 | 2020 | 1 2 | ||
The Unz Review | 15 October 2021 | 2021 | 2021 | 2021 | The site's extensive archive of journal reprints includes many apparent copyright violations .
|
1 2 | |
VDARE | 22 December 2018 | 2018 | 2019 | 2019 | 1 | ||
Veterans Today | 21 December 2019 | 2019 | 2019 | 1 | |||
Voltaire Network | 12 June 2020 | 2020 | 2020 | 2020 | 1 | ||
WorldNetDaily (WND) | 11 December 2018 | 2018 | 2018 | 2019 | 1 2 | ||
Zero Hedge (ZH) | 16 July 2020 | 2020 | 2020 | 2020 | 1 |
Legend
- unregistered usersand accounts under seven days old. This behavior is subject to restrictions, which are described in the lists themselves. Refer to the Notes column for additional exceptions.
- warn editors who attempt to cite the source as a reference in articles. The warning message can be dismissed. Edits that trigger the filter are tagged.
- spam whitelist.
See also
- Edit filter
- Potentially unreliable sources
- Reliable sources § Questionable and self-published sources
- Reliable sources/Noticeboard
- Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 220 § Daily Mail RfC
- Reliable sources/Perennial sources
- Spam blacklist
- Verifiability § Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves
- Wikimedia global spam blacklist
- {{Deprecated inline}}
- Category:All articles with deprecated sources
Notes
- In a highly-attended request for comment.
References
- ^ WP:RFC for the technical instructions. A common approach to posing the RfC question can be seen in this example.
- ^ Multiple sources:
- Kalev Leetaru (2 October 2017). "What Wikipedia's Daily Mail 'Ban' Tells Us About The Future Of Online Censorship". Forbes. Retrieved 25 December 2018.
- Jasper Jackson (8 February 2017). "Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' source". The Guardian. Retrieved 21 November 2018.
- Jon Sharman (9 February 2017). "Wikipedia bans Daily Mail because it's an 'unreliable source'". The Independent. Retrieved 21 November 2018.
- Sebastian Anthony (10 February 2017). "Wikipedia bans Daily Mail for "poor fact checking, sensationalism, flat-out fabrication"". Ars Technica. Retrieved 21 November 2018.
- Also see Daily Mail § Other criticisms.
- never a good reason to oppose(for it can be effectively weaponised as a circular argument across discussions, to prevent deprecation of any source at all) and there is nothing prohibiting any interested editor from launching referendum-RFCs for those sources.")