Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial 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:Reliable sources guideline. It may reflect differing levels of consensus and vetting. |
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. Only sources that have been repeatedly raised for discussion are listed here, it is not a general or comprehensive list of all generally reliable or unreliable sources in the world, it is a summarization of discussions about the listed sources. |
The following presents a non-exhaustive list of sources whose reliability and use on Wikipedia are frequently discussed. This list summarizes prior consensus and consolidates links to the most in-depth and recent discussions from the reliable sources noticeboard and elsewhere on Wikipedia.
How to use this list
Refer to the
Consider the type of content being referenced, alongside the reliability of the sources cited.
What if my source is not here?
If your source is not listed here, the only thing it really means is that it has not 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.
If you do not find what you're looking for, please start a discussion about it there. That is, after all, how the entries on this list got here to begin with.
You can also find a much longer list of previously discussed sources on various topics at Wikipedia:New page patrol source guide.
A source's absence from the list does not imply that it is any more or less reliable than the sources that are present. Absence just means its reliability has not been the subject of serious questioning yet. "
How to improve this list
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,
Inclusion criteria
For a source to be added to this list, editors generally expect two or more significant discussions about the source's reliability in the past, or an uninterrupted
Instructions
Any editor may improve this list. Please refer to the
Legend
- WP:BLP) for the statement in question.depending on context. Editors may not have been able to agree on whether the source is appropriate, or may have agreed that it is only reliable in certain circumstances. It may be necessary to evaluate each use of the source on a case-by-case basis while accounting for specific factors unique to the source in question. Carefully review the Summary column of the table for details on the status of the source and the factors that should be considered.uncontroversial self-descriptions, and self-published or user-generated content authored by established subject-matter expertsis also acceptable.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.reliability. The closing statement of any RfC that is not clearly outdated should normally be considered authoritative and can only be overturned by a newer RfC.user-generated contentare excluded. A change in consensus resulting from changes in the source itself does not apply to publications of the source from before the changes in question. Additionally, while it may be prudent to review these sources before using them, editors should generally assume that the source's previous status is still in effect if there is no reason to believe that the circumstances have changed.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.
- 📌
wikilinkto the list entry for the source.Sources
Note: If you add/remove a source in the "Wikipedia talk:CITEWATCHif you need help.Perennial sources Source Status
(legend)Discussions Uses List Last Summary 112 Ukraine 2019 2020 2020 2020 112 Ukraine was deprecated following a 2019 RfC, which showed overwhelming consensus for the deprecation of a slew of sources associated with Russian disinformation in Ukraine. It was pointed out later in a 2020 RfC that 112 Ukraine had not been explicitly discussed in that first discussion prior to its blacklisting request. Further discussion established a rough consensus that the source is generally unreliable, but did not form a consensus for deprecation or blacklisting. The prior blacklisting was reversed as out of process. 112 Ukraine closed in 2021. 1
2ABC News 1 2 2021 There is consensus that ABC News, the news division of the American Broadcasting Company, is generally reliable. It is not to be confused with other publications of the same name. 1
2Academia.edu 1 2 3 2021 Sources from Academia.edu may or may not be reliable. Academia.edu allows anyone to upload articles, so it doesn't confer any reliability, but the articles have often been published elsewhere first in which case the reliability of an article depends on whether the original source is reliable. When possible, use the original source in preference to Academia.edu. 1 Ad Fontes Media
1 2 3 4 5 2021 There is consensus that Ad Fontes Media and their Media Bias Chart should not be used in article space in reference to sources' political leaning or reliability. Editors consider it a self-published sourceand have questioned its methodology.1 Advameg (City-Data)2019 2019 2019 +14[c]
2019 Advameg operates WP:COPYLINKprohibits linking to copyright violations.1
2 +43The Age 2021 2021 The Age is a newspaper based in Melbourne, Australia. There is consensus that it is generally reliable. 1 Agence France-Presse (AFP) 1 2 2020 Agence France-Presse is a Syndicatedreports from Agence France-Presse that are published in other sources are also considered generally reliable.1 Aljazeera.com)
📌1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 2023 Al Jazeera is a Qatari news blogsshould be handled with the corresponding policy.1
2Al Mayadeen
2023 2023 Al Mayadeen is a Lebanese pan-Arabist news channel. It was deprecated in a 2023 RFC. Some editors believe it publishes lies or misrepresents sources, some describe it as propaganda. 1 Alexa Internet 2022 2022 Alexa Internet was a web traffic analysis company owned by infoboxes.1 AllSides
2022 2022 In a 2022 RfC, editors found no consensus on the reliability of AllSides as a whole. A significant minority of users noted that AllSides has been referenced in reliable sources as an accurate source for media bias ratings, while another significant minority argued that its methodology, which is partly based on the opinions of users, makes it unsuitable for Wikipedia. There is general consensus that reliability varies among the website's articles and should be determined on a case-by-case basis; while the high-confidence ratings are generally reliable as they are reviewed carefully by experts, others depend on blind user surveys that some editors consider opinionated and less reliable. 1 AlterNet 1 2 3 4 5 2019 There is consensus that AlterNet is generally unreliable. Editors consider AlterNet a syndicated contentshould 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 6 7 2021 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.The American Conservative (TAC) 2019 2020 2021 2021 The American Conservative is published by the American Ideas Institute, an advocacy organisation. It is a self-identified opinionated source whose factual accuracy was questioned and many editors say that The American Conservative should not be used as a source for facts. There is consensus that in-text attribution.1 Amnesty International (Amnesty, AI) 2022 2022 Amnesty International is a human rights advocacy organisation. There is consensus that Amnesty International is generally reliable for facts. Editors may on occasion wish to use wording more neutral than that used by Amnesty and in controversial cases editors may wish to consider attribution for opinion. 1 Anadolu Agency (general topics) (AA) 2019
2019The 2019 RfC established no consensus on the reliability of Anadolu Agency. Well-established news outlets are normally considered reliable for statements of fact. However, Anadolu Agency is frequently described as a mouthpiece of the Turkish government that engages in propaganda, owing to its state-run status. See also: Anadolu Agency (controversial topics, international politics). 1
2Anadolu Agency (controversial topics, international politics) (AA) 2019 2019 In the 2019 RfC, editors generally agreed that Anadolu Agency is generally unreliable for topics that are controversial or related to international politics. See also: Anadolu Agency (general topics). 1
2Ancestry.com
1 2 3 4 5 6 2021 Ancestry.com is a user-generated content, which is unreliable.1 ANNA News (Abkhazian Network News Agency, Analytical Network News Agency) 2022 2022 ANNA News was deprecated in the 2022 RfC. It is a pro-Kremlin news agency that has been described as propaganda and has published fabricated information. 1 Answers.com (WikiAnswers) 1 2 3 4 2010 Answers.com (previously known as WikiAnswers) is a circular sourcing.1 Anti-Defamation League (ADL)
2020 2021 There is consensus that ADL is a generally reliable source, including for topics related to hate groups and extremism in the U.S. There is no consensus that ADL must be attributed in all cases, but there is consensus that the labelling of organisations and individuals by the ADL (particularly as antisemitic) should be attributed. Some editors consider the ADL's opinion pieces not reliable, and that they should only be used with attribution. Some editors consider the ADL a biased source for Israel/Palestine related topics that should be used with caution, if at all. 1 Antiwar.com 1 2 3 4 2011 There is consensus that Antiwar.com is generally unreliable. Editors consider Antiwar.com to be biased or opinionated.1
2Aon 2022 2022 In a 2022 RfC, there was consensus that Aon is generally reliable for weather-related articles. Editors pointed out that Aon often provides data not found in other sources, and care should be taken when using the source as it may be providing a different estimate than other sources, e.g. total economic damages, rather than property damage. 1 Apple Daily 2020 2021 A 2020 RfC found that Apple Daily was often but not always reliable, and that it may be appropriate to use it in articles about Hong Kong, but subject to editorial judgment, particularly if the topic is controversial and/or Apple Daily is the only source for a contested claim. There was concern that historically, it was not necessarily as reliable as it was in 2020. Apple Daily shut down in June 2021; website content is no longer accessible unless archived.[1] 1 Arab News 2020 2020 There is consensus that Arab News is a usable source for topics unrelated to the attributionfor its coverage in this area. Some editors consider Arab News unreliable for matters related to the Saudi Arabian government.1 Army Recognition 1 2 2021 The website reproducing press release material without any original reportage. In at least one example it has copied content without attribution from other sources. Editors allege that Army Recognition operates on a pay-for-coverage basis, providing "online marketing and advertising solutions" for the defense industry. This model may raise questions about the impartiality and independence of its content. 1 Ars Technica 1 2 3 2022 Ars Technica is considered generally reliable for science- and technology-related articles. 1
2arXiv WP:ARXIV 📌1 2 3 4 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 accesslink to the paper (which may be hosted on arXiv).1 Asian News International (ANI)
2021 2021 Asian News International is an Indian questionableand generally unreliable due to its reported dissemination of pro-government propaganda.1 AskMen 1 2 3 4 5 6 2020 There is no consensus on the reliability of AskMen. See also: IGN. 1 Association of Religion Data Archives (ARDA, Pew–Templeton Global Religious Futures)
2018 2022 No consensus on reliability; rough consensus to use the sources with in-text attribution and to prefer the use of stronger sources. 1 1 1 1 1 Associated Press (AP) 1 2 3 4 5 6
2018The Associated Press is a Syndicatedreports from the Associated Press that are published in other sources are also considered generally reliable.1
2The Atlantic (The Atlantic Monthly) 1 2 3 4 2022 The Atlantic is considered generally reliable. Editors should beware that The Atlantic does not always clearly delineate between reporting and opinion content; opinion pieces, including all articles in the "Ideas" column (theatlantic.com/ideas/), are governed by WP:RSOPINION.1 Atlas Obscura "places" articles
1 2 3 4 2023 Atlas Obscura's "places" articles are user-generated and user-editable with minimal oversight, and the site's terms of use includes disclaimers about user submissions. Many of the "places" articles cite Wikipedia as a source of their information or otherwise lack clear or reliable sourcing. These articles should generally not be referenced on Wikipedia. 1 Atlas Obscura "articles" articles
1 2 3 4 2023 Atlas Obscura's "articles" articles are professionally authored with editor oversight, and generally reliable. However, other areas of the site operate as a commercial travel service vendor, and the site hosts user-generated content in its "places" articles (see WP:AOPLACES)1 The Australian 1 2 2020 The Australian is considered generally reliable. Some editors consider The Australian to be a partisan source. Opinion pieces are covered by WP:NEWSBLOG. Several editors expressed concern regarding their coverage of climate change related topics.1 Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) 2021 2021 There is consensus that use of Australian Strategic Policy Institute should be evaluated for biased or opinionated sourcethat is reliable in the topic area of Australian defence and strategic issues but recommend care as it is a think tank associated with the defence industry in Australia and the Australian Government.1 The A.V. Club 1 2 3 4 2024 The A.V. Club is considered generally reliable for film, music and TV reviews. There is consensus that AI-generated articles are generally unreliable; The A.V. Club's parent company, G/O Media, began releasing such pieces in July 2023, usually under the byline "The A.V. Club Bot".[2] 1 AVN (Adult Video News, AVN Magazine) 2021 2021 AVN is considered generally reliable for the adult industry. Editors should take care to ensure the content is not a republished press release (which is marked as such in search). 1 Axios 1 2 2020 There is consensus that Axios is generally reliable. Some editors consider Axios to be a due weight.1 Baidu Baike
2020 2020 Baidu Baike was deprecated in the 2020 RfC as 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 kusooriginated from Baidu Baike.Ballotpedia
1 2 3
2016There 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."[3]1 BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation)
17[d] 2021 BBC is a British Statements of opinionshould conform to the corresponding guideline.1
2Behind the Voice Actors
2022 2022 There is consensus that Behind the Voice Actors is generally reliable for roles credits. Editors agree that its coverage is routine and does not contribute to notability.1 Bellingcat 2019 2021 There is consensus that Bellingcat is generally reliable for news and should preferably be used with biasedsource.1 bestgore.com 2021 2021 There is consensus that bestgore.com is a shock site with no credibility. It is deprecated and has been added to the spam blacklist. bestgore.com was shut down in 2020; website content is no longer accessible unless archived.1 Bild WP:BILD 📌1 2 3 2020 Bild is a German tabloid that has been unfavourably compared to The Sun. A few editors consider the source usable in some cases. 1 Biography.com1
2018There 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.[4]1
2Blogger (blogspot.com) 21[e] 2020 Blogger is a living persons; this includes interviews, as even those cannot be authenticated.1 Bloomberg (Bloomberg News, Bloomberg Businessweek) 1 2 3 4
2019Bloomberg publications, including Bloomberg News and Bloomberg Businessweek, are considered generally reliable for news and business topics. See also: Bloomberg profiles. 1
2Bloomberg profiles 1 2
2018Bloomberg 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
2019There is no consensus on the reliability of Boing Boing. Although Boing Boing is a copyright law.1 Breitbart News
2018 2018 +16[f]
2023 Due to persistent abuse, Breitbart.com is on the outing policy, unless the editor is voluntarily disclosing the information on Wikipedia.1
2BroadwayWorld 1 2 3 4 2023 BroadwayWorld is considered generally unreliable, as it contains many articles that reproduce press releases, disguising this as authentic journalism. As the site has limited editorial oversight, and the true author of the content of press releases is obscured, this website should generally not be used for facts about living persons.1 Burke's Peerage 2020 2020 Burke's Peerage is considered generally reliable for genealogy. 1 Bustle 2019
2019There 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
2018Editors 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.[5] BuzzFeed may use A/B testing for new articles, which may cause article content to change.[6] 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
10[g] 2021 There is consensus that BuzzFeed News is generally reliable. BuzzFeed News operated separately from . 1
2California Globe2021 2021 There is consensus that The California Globe is generally unreliable. Editors note the lack of substantial editorial process, the lack of evidence for fact-checking, and the bias present in the site's material. Editors also note the highly opinionated nature of the site as evidence against its reliability. 1 The Canary 2021 2021 There is consensus that The Canary is generally unreliable. Its reporting is sensationalist at times; selective reporting, a left-wing bias, and a poor distinction between editorial and news content were also noted. 1 Cato Institute 1 2
2015The Cato Institute is considered generally reliable for its opinion. Some editors consider the Cato Institute an authoritative source on attributed.1 CelebrityNetWorth (CNW)
WP:CNW 📌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.[9] 1 Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) 2020 2020 The Center for Economic and Policy Research is an attributed.1 Centre for Research on Globalisation(CRG, Global Research, globalresearch.ca)2019 2019 Due to persistent abuse, Global Research is on the parity of sourcesshould be considered.1
2
3CESNUR (Centro Studi sulle Nuove Religioni, Center for Studies on New Religions, Bitter Winter)
2022 2022 CESNUR is an conflicts of interest. There is also consensus that its content is unreliable on its own merits. CESNUR has an online magazine, Bitter Winter, that is also considered generally unreliable.1
2
3ChatGPT and other large language models
1 2023 ChatGPT and similar large language models are considered generally unreliable. While ChatGPT has been trained on a vast amount of data and can generate responses based on that training, it often provides inaccurate or fictitious information. Wikipedia:Large language models generally recommends against using LLMs to write on Wikipedia. 1 China Daily
2021 2021 inline citationswhen sourcing content to China Daily.1
2
3China Global Television Network (CGTN, CCTV International) WP:CGTN 📌2020 2020 China Global Television Network was deprecated in the 2020 RfC for publishing false or fabricated information. Many editors consider CGTN a propaganda outlet, and some editors express concern over CGTN's airing of forced confessions. 1 The Christian Science Monitor (CSM, CS Monitor)
20[h]
2016The Christian Science Monitor is considered generally reliable for news. 1 CliffsNotes 1 2
2018CliffsNotes 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 4 2020 Climate Feedback is a self-published sourcedue to its high reviewer requirements.1 CNET (pre–October 2020) 2023 17[i] 2023 CNET is considered generally reliable for its technology-related articles prior to its acquisition by Red Ventures in October 2020. In 2023, Red Ventures began deleting thousands of old CNET articles; you may have to use the Internet Archive to access this content.[10] 1 CNET (October 2020–October 2022) 2023 2023 CNET was acquired by digital marketing company Red Ventures in October 2020, leading to a deterioration in editorial standards. Staff writers were pressured by company executives to publish content more favorably to advertisers in order to benefit Red Ventures' business dealings; this included both news stories and reviews. 1 CNET (November 2022–present) WP:CNET 📌2023 2023 In November 2022, CNET began deploying an experimental AI tool to rapidly generate articles riddled with factual inaccuracies and affiliate links, with the purpose of increasing published reports exposing its actions. More than 70 finance-related articles written by the AI tool were published under the byline "CNET Money Staff", and Red Ventures issued corrections to over half of them amidst mounting pressure. CNET has since announced it would pause the use of its AI tool "for now", but concerns over its advertiser-driven editorial content remain unresolved. 1 CNN (Cable News Network)
2019 2020 16[j]
2022 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 Coda Media (Coda Story) 2021 2021 A 2021 RfC found consensus that Coda Media is generally reliable for factual reporting. A few editors consider Coda Media a biased source for international politics related to the U.S., as it has received funding from the National Endowment for Democracy, though not to the extent that it affects reliability.1 CoinDesk
2018 2019 2023 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 at the time (previously Digital Currency Group, now Bullion) has an ownership stake in a company covered by CoinDesk.[11]1 Common Sense Media (CSM) WP:CSM 📌1 2 3 2020 There is consensus that Common Sense Media is generally reliable for entertainment reviews. As an advocacy organization, Common Sense Media is attributed.1 Consortium News1 2 3 4 5 2019 There is consensus that Consortium News is generally unreliable. Certain articles (particularly those by fringe, demonstrably false, or have been described by mainstream outlets as "conspiracy theories."1 The Conversation
1 2 3
2019The Conversation publishes articles from academics who are WP:RSOPINION.1 Cosmopolitan 1 2 3 4 5
2019There 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 Correo del Orinoco 2023 2023 There is consensus that Correo del Orinoco is generally unreliable because it is used to amplify misleading and/or false information. Many editors consider Correo del Orinoco is used by the Venezuelan government to promulgate propaganda due to its connection to the Bolivarian Communication and Information System. 1 CounterPunch
2021 2022 12[k]
2022 CounterPunch is a left-wing political opinion magazine. Despite the fact that the publication has an editorial board, there is no effective editorial control over the content of the publication, so articles should be treated as attributed. Some articles in the publication promote conspiracy theories and historical denialism, but there was no consensus to deprecate the outlet based on the most recent RfC.1
2Cracked.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 read and cite that source instead. 1 The Cradle
2024 2024 The Cradle is an online magazine focusing on West Asia/Middle East-related topics. It was deprecated in the 2024 RfC due to a history of publishing conspiracy theoriesand wide referencing of other deprecated sources while doing so. Editors consider The Cradle to have a poor reputation for fact-checking.1 Crunchbase
2019 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 3 4 5 2021 There is no consensus on the reliability of The Daily Beast. Most editors consider The Daily Beast a living persons.1 The Daily Caller
2019 2019 The Daily Caller was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the site publishes false or fabricated information. 1
2
3The Daily Dot
2022 10[l]
2022 There is no consensus regarding the general reliability of The Daily Dot, though it is considered fine for citing non-contentious claims of fact. Some editors have objected to its tone or consider it to be due weightbefore citing it in an article.1 Daily Express
1 2 3 4 5 6 2020 The Daily Express is a tabloid with a number of similarities to the Daily Mail. It is considered generally unreliable. 1
2Daily Kos
1 2 3 2017 There is consensus that Daily Kos should generally be avoided as a source, especially for controversial political topics where better sources are available. As an point of view, many editors consider Daily Kos to inappropriately blur news reporting and opinion.1 Daily Mail (MailOnline)
WP:RSPDM 📌2017 2019 2020 52[m]
2022 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. (Note that dailymail.co.uk is not trustworthy as a source of past content that was printed in the Daily Mail.) The restriction is often incorrectly interpreted as a "ban" on the Daily Mail. The deprecation includes other editions of the UK Daily Mail, such as the Irish and Scottish editions. The UK Daily Mail is not to be confused with other publications named Daily Mail that are unaffiliated with the UK paper. The dailymail.com domain was previously used by the unaffiliated Charleston Daily Mail, and reference links to that publication are still present.Daily Mirror (Mirror)
1 2 3 4 5 2020 The Daily Mirror, also known just as the Mirror, is a tabloid newspaper that publishes tabloid journalism. There is no consensus on whether its reliability is comparable to that of British tabloids such as the Daily Mail and The Sun.1 Daily NK
2022 2022 The Daily NK is an online newspaper based in South Korea that reports on stories based inside of North Korea. There is no consensus as to if it should be deprecated or used with attribution. There is a consensus that this source, as well as all other sources reporting on North Korea, is generally unreliable. However, due to a paucity of readily accessible information on North Korea, as well as a perception that Daily NK is not more unreliable than other sources on the topic, it can be used as a source, albeit with great caution. 1 Daily Star (UK)
2020 2020 The Daily Star was deprecated in the 2020 RfC due to its reputation for publishing false or fabricated information. 1
2The Daily Telegraph (UK) (The Telegraph, The Sunday Telegraph) 2022 18[n]
2022 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. This consensus may need to be reviewed if the United Arab Emirates takes over the Telegraph.[12] Unrelated to The Daily Telegraph (Sydney).1 The Daily Wire 2021 2021 There is a strong consensus that The Daily Wire is generally unreliable for factual reporting. Detractors note the site's tendency to share stories that are taken out of context or are improperly verified.[13][14] 1 Deadline Hollywood
1 2 3 4 5 6
2019Deadline Hollywood is considered generally reliable for entertainment-related articles. 1
2Debrett's 2020 2020 There is consensus that Debrett's is reliable for genealogical information. However, their defunct "People of Today" section is considered to be not adequately independentas the details were solicited from the subjects. Editors have also raised concerns that this section included paid coverage.1 Democracy Now! 1 2 3 4 5
2013There is no consensus on the reliability of Democracy Now!. Most editors consider Democracy Now! a Syndicated contentpublished by Democracy Now! should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher.1 Deseret News 1 2 3 4 2022 The Deseret News is considered generally reliable for local news. It is owned by a subsidiary of primary sourceas an official publication of the LDS Church.1 Deutsche Welle (DW, DW-TV) 1 2 3 2022 Deutsche Welle is a German international broadcaster. It is considered generally reliable. Some editors consider that the quality of DW depends on the language edition.1 Dexerto 2019 2023 2023 Dexerto is a website covering gaming news, internet personalities, and entertainment. Editors agree that it is a tabloid publication that rarely engages in serious journalism; while it may be used as a source on a case by case basis (with some editors arguing for the reliability of its esports coverage), it is usually better to find an alternative source, and it is rarely suitable for use on notability.1 Digital Spy 1 2 3 4 5
2012There 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
2The Diplomat
1 2 2020 There is consensus that The Diplomat is generally reliable. Opinion pieces should be evaluated by WP:NEWSBLOG. Some editors have expressed concern on their reliability for North Korea-related topics.1 Discogs
2019 2019 The content on Discogs is external linksto the site may be appropriate.1 Distractify 1 2 3 2023 There is consensus that Distractify is generally unreliable. Editors believe Distractify runs run-of-the-mill gossip that is unclearly either BLPs.1 ) 2018 2020 +16[o]
2020 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 whitelisted before they can be used. See also: Investopedia.The Economist 2022 2022 Most editors consider The Economist generally reliable. The Economist publishes exclusively magazine blogsand several podcasts, which should be handled with the respective guidelines.1 The Electronic Intifada (EI) 2024 2024 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)
📌15[p] 2022 Encyclopædia Britannica is a quality general encyclopedia (including its online edition, secondary sourcesover the Encyclopædia Britannica when available. From 2009 to 2010, the Encyclopædia Britannica Online accepted a small number of content submissions from the general public. 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 Encyclopædia Iranica 1 2 3 4 5 2022 The Encyclopædia Iranica is considered generally reliable for Iran-related topics. 1 Encyclopaedia Metallum (Metal Archives, MA)
1 2 2016 Encyclopaedia Metallum is user-generated and so best avoided. It is listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources § Unreliable sources.1 Encyclopedia Astronautica 2023 2023 Encyclopedia Astronautica is a website on space history. A 2023 RfC found no consensus on the reliability of the site. There appears to be a consensus that this is a valuable resource, but it lacks editorial oversight, contains errors, and is no longer updated. Caution needs to taken in using this source. 1 Engadget 1
2012Engadget is considered generally reliable for technology-related articles. Its statements should be attributed.1 Entertainment Weekly (EW) 1 2 3
2018Entertainment Weekly is considered generally reliable for entertainment-related articles. There is no consensus on whether it is reliable for other topics. 1 Entrepreneur (Entrepreneur India) 2020 1 2021 There is no consensus for the reliability of Entrepreneur Magazine, although there is a consensus that "contributor" pieces in the publication should be treated as self-published, similar to Forbes.com contributors. Editors did not provide much evidence of fabrication in their articles, but were concerned that its coverage tends toward churnalismand may include improperly disclosed paid pieces.1 2019 2022 The Epoch Times was deprecated in the 2019 RfC. Most editors classify The Epoch Times as an advocacy group for the biased or opinionated source that frequently publishes conspiracy theoriesas fact.Evening Standard (London Evening Standard) 1 2 3 4 5 6
2018There 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 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; website content is no longer accessible unless archived.1 Facebook WP:RSPFB 📌
2020 2020 Facebook is considered generally unreliable because it is a edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite Facebook as a source, and no consensus on whether Facebook citations should be automatically reverted with XLinkBot.1 Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) 2010
2014There 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
2019 2019 Due to persistent abuse, Famous Birthdays is on the living persons.1 Fandom wikis (Wikia, Wikicities)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2019 Fandom (formerly Wikia and Wikicities) wikis are considered generally unreliable because policies and guidelinesafter copying. Fandom's staff blogs are written with an unclear level of editorial oversight and consensus is that they are not necessarily reliable. These should be treated as unreliable self-published sources, unless the article was written by a subject-matter expert.The Federalist 2021 2021 The Federalist is generally unreliable for facts due to its attributedopinions.1 Financial Times (FT) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
2018The Financial Times is considered generally reliable. 1 Find a Grave 1 2 3 4 5 6 2021 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 accessto Findmypast.1 Flags of the World (FOTW) WP:FOTW 📌1 2 3 4 2013 Flags of the World has been written off as an unreliable source in general. Although some of its pages might refer to reliable sources, it is self-published content without editorial oversight, and the hosts "disclaim any responsibility about the veracity and accuracy of the contents of the website." 1
2Flickr 1 2 3 2020 Most photos on Flickr are anonymous, original research.1 Forbes
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2022 Forbes and Forbes.com include articles written by their staff, which are written with editorial oversight, and are generally reliable. This excludes articles written by Forbes.com contributors or "Senior Contributors". Forbes also publishes various "top" lists which can be referenced in articles. 1 Forbes.com contributors
📌16[q] 2022 Most content on Forbes.com is written by generally reliable. Check the byline to determine whether an article is written by a "Forbes Staff" member, "Contributor", "Senior Contributor", or "Subscriber". In addition, check underneath the byline to see whether it was published in a print issue of Forbes. Previously, Forbes.com contributor articles could have been 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[r] (news excluding politics and science)
2010 2020 2023 13[s]
2023 Historically, there has been consensus that Fox News is generally reliable for news coverage on topics other than politics and science. However, many editors expressed concerns about the reliability of Fox News for any topic in a 2023 RFC. No formal consensus was reached on the matter, though. See also: Fox News (politics and science), Fox News (talk shows). 1
2Fox News[r] (politics and science)
2010 2020 2022 2023 23[t]
2023 There is consensus Fox News is generally unreliable for the reporting of politics, especially from November 2020 onwards. On the matter of science, and on the matter of pre-November 2020 politics, there is a consensus that the reliability of Fox News is unclear and that additional considerations apply to its use. As a result, Fox News is considered marginally reliable and generally does not qualify as a "high-quality source" for the purpose of substantiating exceptional claims in these topic areas. Editors perceive Fox News to be in-text attribution for opinions. See also: Fox News (news excluding politics and science), Fox News (talk shows).1 Fox News[r] (talk shows) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2020 Fox News talk shows, including opinions. See also: Fox News (news excluding politics and science), Fox News (politics and science).1 FrontPage Magazine (FPM, FrontPageMag.com) WP:FPM 📌2020 2022 In the 2020 RfC, there was unanimous consensus to deprecate FrontPage Magazine. Editors consider the publication generally unreliable, and believe that its opinions should be assigned little to no biased or opinionated.1
2Game Developer (Gamasutra) 1 2 2020 Game Developer is considered generally reliable for subjects related to video games. 1
2Game Informer 1 2 2021 Game Informer is considered generally reliable for video games. 1 The Gateway Pundit (TGP) 2019 2019 The Gateway Pundit was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the site is unacceptable as a source. It is unreliable for statements of fact, and given to publishing hoax articles and reporting conspiracy theories as fact. 1 Gawker 2019 2019 Gawker (2002–2016) was a 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. In 2021, the publication was relaunched under Bustle Digital Group, and subsequently closed in 2023. The second incarnation has not been discussed at RSN.1 Gazeta Wyborcza 1 2 2021 There is consensus that Gazeta Wyborcza is generally reliable. Some editors concern about its sensationalist tendency in recent years. 1 GB News 1 2022 There is consensus that GB News is generally unreliable. 1
2Geni.com 1 2 3 4 5 2019 original research.1 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
2Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) (names and locations) 2021 2022 The Geographic Names Information System is a United States-based geographical database. It is generally reliable for its place names and locations/coordinates. Editors should take care that GNIS uses a different convention for its coordinates, using a particular feature of a location rather than the geometric center that most WikiProjects use. 1 Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) (feature classes) 2021 2021 The Geographic Names Information System is a United States-based geographical database. It is generally unreliable for its feature classes and it should not be used to determine the legal recognition requirement.1 GEOnet Names Server (GNS) (names and locations) 2021 2021 The GEOnet Names Server is an United States-based geographical database that covers non-US countries. It is considered to be close to generally reliable for its place names and locations/coordinates, though there are concerns that GNS may not always be accurate and sometimes report the existence of places that do not even exist. Editors are advised to exercise caution when using it. 1 GEOnet Names Server (GNS) (feature classes) 2021 2021 The GEOnet Names Server is a United States-based geographical database that covers non-US countries. It is generally unreliable for its feature classes and it should not be used to determine the legal recognition requirement.1 Gizmodo 1 2 3 4 2023 There is consensus that Gizmodo is generally reliable for technology, popular culture, and entertainment. There is no consensus on whether it is generally reliable for controversial statements. There is consensus that AI-generated articles are generally unreliable; Gizmodo's parent company, G/O Media, began releasing such pieces in July 2023, usually under the byline "Gizmodo Bot".[18] 1 Global Times (Huanqiu Shibao)
2020 2021 The Global Times is a tabloid owned by the Chinese Communist Party. It was deprecated near-unanimously in a 2020 RfC which found that it publishes false or fabricated information, including pro-Chinese government propaganda and conspiracy theories. As with other Chinese news sites, the Global Times website may host announcements from government agencies not written by the tabloid. Authors are advised to find alternate web pages with the same content.
1
2GlobalSecurity.org
2022 11[u]
2022 globalsecurity.org is an unreliable user-contributed and scraper site given to plagiarism. In the 2022 deprecation RFC, a slight majority of editors held that globalsecurity.org should be regarded as generally unreliable, with a significant minority arguing for deprecation. The site should not be used to back factual claims on Wikipedia. GlobalSecurity.org should not be confused with globalresearch.ca. 1 The Globe and Mail 2021 2021 In a 2021 RfC, editors found a strong consensus that The Globe and Mail is generally reliable for news coverage and is considered a newspaper of record. 1 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 6 7 2022 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 preferred over 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
2GQ (GQ Magazine) 1 2
2019There is strong consensus that GQ, including its international editions, is generally reliable. It is noted by editors for having quality editorial oversight for non-contentious topics. The Grayzone
2020 2020 The Grayzone was deprecated in the 2020 RfC. There is consensus that The Grayzone publishes false or fabricated information. Some editors describe The Grayzone as Max Blumenthal's blog, and question the website's editorial oversight. 1 The Green Papers 2020 A2020 There is no consensus on the reliability of The Green Papers. As a United States electionresults, some editors question the site's editorial oversight.1 15[v]
2019There 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
3The Guardian blogs 10[w] 2020 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
3Guido Fawkes1 2 3 4 2020 The Guido Fawkes website (order-order.com) is considered generally unreliable because it is a living persons.1 Guinness World Records 1 2 3 4 5 2020 There is consensus that world records verified by Guinness World Records should not be used to establish notability. Editors have expressed concern that post-2008 records include paid coverage. 1 Haaretz (Ḥadashot Ha'aretz)
10[x] 2021 Haaretz is considered generally reliable. Some editors believe that Haaretz reports with a political slant, particularly with respect to the the appropriate guideline.1
2UK Parliament transcripts, House of Commons, House of Lords)1 2 3 4
2019As 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.Healthline
2023 2023 Healthline is a medical resource that is substantially written by non-expert freelance writers and reviewed by non-expert advisors. The content is frequently incorrect misinformation, sometimes dangerously so. Due to the heightened requirements for WP:MEDRSand to blacklist Healthline as a hazard to readers. References to Healthline should be removed from Wikipedia.1 Heat Street 1 2 2017 Although Heat Street was owned by due weightmust be considered because Heat Street covers many political topics not as talked about in higher-profile sources.1 Heavy.com1 2 3 2022 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 read and cite the original source instead. 1 The Hill
10[y]
2019The Hill is considered generally reliable for American politics. The publication's self-published sources.1 The Hindu
1 2 3 4 2022 There is consensus that The Hindu is generally reliable and should be treated as a opinion piecesshould be handled with the appropriate guideline.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
2History (The History Channel)
1 2 3 2021 Most editors consider conspiracy theories.1 The Hollywood Reporter (THR) WP:THR 📌1 2 3 4 5
2018There 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
2019Most 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
2HuffPost (excluding politics) (The Huffington Post) WP:HUFF 📌
2020 13[z]
2021 A 2020 RfC found HuffPost staff writers fairly reliable for factual reporting on non-political topics, but notes that they may give prominence to topics that support their political headline. See also: HuffPost (politics), HuffPost contributors.HuffPost (politics) (The Huffington Post)
2020 10[aa]
2020 In the 2020 RfC, there was no consensus on HuffPost staff writers' reliability for political topics. The community considers HuffPost openly biased on American politics. There is no consensus on its reliability for international politics. See also: HuffPost (excluding politics), HuffPost contributors.HuffPost contributors (The Huffington Post)
2020 18[ab]
2020 Until 2018, the U.S. edition of HuffPost published content written by contributors with near-zero editorial oversight. These contributors generally did not have a reputation for fact-checking, and most editors consider them highly variable in quality. Editors show consensus for treating HuffPost contributor articles as subject-matter expert. In 2018, HuffPost discontinued its contributor platform, but old contributor articles are still online. 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 (excluding politics), HuffPost (politics).1
2Human Events 1 2 3
2019Editors 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. See also: The Post Millennial.1 Idolator1 2
2014There is consensus that Idolator is generally reliable for popular music. Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weightbefore citing it in an article.1 IGN (Imagine Games Network) WP:IGN 📌12[ac]
2017There is consensus that IGN is generally reliable for entertainment and popular culture, as well as for film and video game reviews given that attribution is provided. Consider whether the information from this source constitutes WP:RSBLOG. See also: AskMen.1 IMDb (Internet Movie Database) WP:IMDB 📌2019 +32[ad]
2020 The content on IMDb is WP:IMDB-EL).1 The Independent
2021 2021 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
2018There 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 1 2 2020 The self-published source.The Indian Express
2020 2020 The Indian Express is considered generally reliable under the news organizations guideline.1 InfoWars (NewsWars)
2018 2018 2018 2018 Due to persistent abuse, InfoWars is on both the secondary sourcein articles.Inquisitr 1 2 3 2021 Inquisitr is a news aggregator, although it does publish some original reporting. There is consensus that Inquisitr is a generally unreliable source. Editors note that where Inquisitr has aggregated news from other sources, it is better to cite the original sources of information. 1 2020 2022 11[ae]
2022 There is no consensus on the reliability of Insider. The site's syndicated content, which may not be clearly marked, should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher. See also: Insider (culture).1
2
3Insider(culture)2021 2021 There is consensus that Insider is generally reliable for its coverage in its culture section. See also: Insider (excluding culture). 1
2Inter Press Service (IPS) 1 2
2011The Inter Press Service is a news agency. There is consensus that the Inter Press Service is generally reliable for news. 1
2
3The Intercept 1 2 3 4 2020 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 journalsover 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.2020 2020 The reliabilityof fact-checking organizations.1 Investopedia
1 2 3 4 5 2023 Investopedia is a tertiary source on finances, owned by Dotdash. A number of users have reported inaccurate and low-quality content on this website. It is advised not to use Investopedia, and to cite other, higher quality sources instead.1 IslamQA.info 1 2 2022 IslamQA.info is a Q&A site on Salafism founded and supervised by Muhammad Saalih al-Munajjid. There is no consensus on whether it could be used for the Salaf Movement, with more reliable secondary sources recommended and in-text attribution if utilised. It is considered generally unreliable for broader Islam-related topics due to it representing a minor viewpoint. Some editors also consider the website a self-published source due to the lack of editorial control. 1 Jacobin 2021 2022 due weightis given to their perspective amongst others'. The reliability of articles authored by Branko Marcetic has been considered questionable.1
2JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association) 1 2
2018JAMA is a WP:MEDRS.1 The Jewish Chronicle (The JC) 2021 2021 There is consensus that The Jewish Chronicle is generally reliable for news, particularly in its pre-2010 reporting. There is no consensus on whether The Jewish Chronicle is reliable for topics related to the in-text attributionis recommended for its coverage of these topics.1 Jewish Virtual Library (JVL) 2020 2021 The Jewish Virtual Library is a cites Wikipediaand it is mostly unreliable, especially in its "Myths & Facts" section. When it cites sources, those should preferably be read and then cited directly instead. Some exceptions on a case-by-case basis are possible.1 Jezebel
1 2
2016There is no consensus on the reliability of Jezebel. Most editors believe that Jezebel is living persons. The website shut down in November 2023 but was relaunched in December 2023.1 Jihad Watch 2021 2021 Jihad Watch was deprecated in the 2021 RfC; of the editors who commented on the substance of the proposal, they were unanimous that the source is unreliable. It is a blog generally regarded as propagating anti-Muslim conspiracy theories. 1 Joshua Project (Believers in Christ from a Muslim Background: A Global Census, WEC International)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2022 The Joshua Project is an ethnological database created to support Christian missions. It is considered to be generally unreliable due to the lack of any academic recognition or an adequate editorial process. The Joshua Project provides a list of sources from which they gather their data, many of which are related evangelical groups and they too should not be used for ethnological data as they are questionable sources.1 1 Kirkus Reviews
1 2 3 4 5 2023 Most content by Kirkus Reviews is considered to be generally reliable. Kirkus Indie is a pay-for-review program for independent authors: its content is considered to be questionable and to not count towards notability, in part because the author can choose whether or not the review is published. Whether or not a review is a "Kirkus Indie" can be determined by the presence of a "Review Program: KIRKUS INDIE" tag at the end of the article. 1 Know Your Meme (KYM)
WP:KYM 📌1 2 3 4 5 6 2022 Know Your Meme entries, including "confirmed" entries, are user-generatedand generally unreliable. There is no consensus on the reliability of their video series.1 Kommersant 2021 2021 Kommersant is a liberal business intext attribution.1
2
3Land Transport Guru 1 2 3 2024 Due to it being a self-published source, Land Transport Guru is considered an unreliable source Last.fm
2019 2019 Last.fm was deprecated in the 2019 RfC. The content on Last.fm is user-generated, and is considered generally unreliable.1 Lenta.ru (12 March 2014–present) 2019 2020 2020 Due to persistent abuse, Lenta.ru is on the secondary sourcein articles.1 LifeSiteNews (Campaign Life Coalition)
2019 2019 LifeSiteNews was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the site publishes false or fabricated information. 1
2LinkedIn (LinkedIn Pulse)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2020 LinkedIn is a social network. As a living persons.1 LiveJournal 1 2 3 4 2020 LiveJournal is a living persons.1 LiveLeak 2019 2019 Due to persistent abuse, LiveLeak is on the primary source is questionable in most cases, as the provenance of most of the videos is unclear. LiveLeak shut down in May 2021; website content is no longer accessible unless archived.[19]1 Los Angeles Times (L.A. Times)
1 2 3 4 5 6
2016Most editors consider the Los Angeles Times generally reliable. Refer to WP:NEWSBLOGfor the newspaper's blog.1 Lulu.com (Lulu Press) WP:LULU 📌2008 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 Mail & Guardian 2021 2021 The Mail & Guardian is a South African newspaper. There is consensus that it is generally reliable. 1 The Mail on Sunday
2020 2020 There is clear and substantial consensus that the Mail on Sunday is generally unreliable, and a slightly narrower consensus that the source should be deprecated. Those supporting deprecation point to factual errors, asserted fabrications, and biased reporting identified on the part of the source, with reference to specific instances, and to common ownership of the source with a previously deprecated source. Marquis Who's Who (Who's Who in America) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2022 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
2Mashable (non-sponsored content)
2021 2021 In a 2021 RfC, editors achieved a consensus that while non-sponsored content from Mashable is generally fine, Mashable tends towards less formal writing and is geared at a particular niche (tech news and pop culture). As such, non-sponsored content should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, especially if the subject matter is outside of Mashable's usual focus. Extra attention needs to be paid when it comes to sponsoredcontent, especially ensuring that the content was written by Mashable staff and not the sponsor themselves.1 Mashable (sponsored content) 2021 2021 In a 2021 RfC, editors achieved a consensus that while non-sponsored content from Mashable is generally fine, Mashable tends towards less formal writing and is geared at a particular niche (tech news and pop culture). As such, non-sponsored content should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, especially if the subject matter is outside of Mashable's usual focus. Extra attention needs to be paid when it comes to sponsoredcontent, especially ensuring that the content was written by Mashable staff and not the sponsor themselves.1 The Mary Sue1 2 3 2022 There is consensus that The Mary Sue is generally reliable. Most editors consider The Mary Sue biased or opinionated. Opinions should be attributed.1 MDPI (Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute) WP:MDPI 📌1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2021 Publications in MDPI journals are considered questionable. Editors have raised concerns about the robustness of MDPI's peer review process and their lack of selectivity in what they publish. Originally placed on Norwegian Scientific Index, and another 5% are under review.[20]1 MEAWW (Media Entertainment Arts WorldWide) 1 2 3 2021 MEAWW is a tabloid side covering pop culture and the internet. The site often employs clickbait and is considered generally unreliable. 1 Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC) WP:MBFC 📌WP:MB/FC 📌1 2 3 4 2021 There is consensus that Media Bias/Fact Check is generally unreliable, as it is self-published. Editors have questioned the methodology of the site's ratings.1 Media Matters for America (MMfA)
2010 2019 10[af]
2019There is consensus that Media Matters is attributed.1 MRCTV, NewsBusters)2010 2019 2020 6[ag]
2020 There is consensus that the Media Research Center and its subdivisions (e.g. CNSNews.com, MRCTV, and NewsBusters) are generally unreliable for factual reporting. Some editors believe these sources publish false or fabricated information. As attributed.Mediaite 1 2 3
2019There 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 weightshould be considered if no other reliable sources support a given statement.1 Medium
2022 2022 Medium is a Cuepoint, Medium's music publication, is marginally reliable, with editors stating that its reliability depends on the qualification of the author.1 Metacritic (GameRankings) 10[ah]
2017Metacritic is considered generally reliable for its review aggregation and its news articles on film, TV, and video games. 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 Metacritic are generally unreliable, as they are self-published sources. Reviewers tracked by Metacritic are not automatically reliable for their reviews. In December 2019, video game aggregate site GameRankings shut down and merged with Metacritic; GameRankings's content is no longer accessible unless archived.[21][22][23]1
2Metal-experience.com
2021 2021 Metal-experience.com was determined to be generally unreliable for factual reporting. 1 MetalSucks 1 2
2018MetalSucks 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 (UK) WP:METRO 📌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 are considered more reliable than articles published only on the metro.co.uk website. The newspaper articles were previously segregated online via the metro.news domain and are presently tagged under "metro newspaper" at the metro.co.uk domain. 1
2Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) WP:MEMRI 📌2020 2020 The reliability of MEMRI is considered to lie between no consensus and generally unreliable. Many editors argue that MEMRI has a history of providing misleading coverage. 1
2MintPress News 2019 2019 MintPress News was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the site publishes false or fabricated information. Le Monde diplomatique 1 2 3 4
2018There is consensus that Le Monde diplomatique is generally reliable. Some editors consider Le Monde diplomatique to be a biased and opinionated source. 1
2Mondoweiss 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
2019Mondoweiss 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
2019The Morning Star is a British tabloid with a low circulation and readership that the biographies of living personspolicy.1 Mother Jones (MoJo)
1 2 3 4 5
2019There is consensus that Mother Jones is generally reliable. Almost all editors consider Mother Jones a due weightbefore citing it in an article.1 MSNBC 2020 1 2020 There is consensus that MSNBC is generally reliable. Talk show content should be treated as opinion pieces. See also: NBC News1 MyLife (Reunion.com) 2019 2019 2019 Due to persistent abuse, MyLife is on the user-generated content, and is considered generally unreliable.1
2The Nation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2020 There is consensus that The Nation is generally reliable. In the "About" section of their website, they identify as progressive. Most editors consider The Nation a biographies of living personspolicy.1 National Enquirer 2019 2019 The National Enquirer is a edit filterto warn editors against using the publication.1 National Geographic (Nat Geo)
1 2 3 2020 There is consensus that National Geographic is generally reliable. For coverage by National Geographic of parity of sourcesshould be considered.1 National Review (NR)
1 2 3 4 5 6
2018There is no consensus on the reliability of National Review. Most editors consider National Review a biographies of living personspolicy.1 Natural News (NewsTarget) 2019 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
2NBC News 1 2 2020 There is consensus that NBC News is generally reliable for news. See also: MSNBC 1 2021 2021 There is consensus that additional considerations apply when considering whether the use of due weightand that discretion should be applied on a case-by-case basis when determining if a review from The Needle Drop is appropriate to include in a given article.1 The New American 1 2 3 4 5 6 2016 There is consensus that The New American is generally unreliable for factual reporting. Some editors consider it usable for attributed opinions regarding the John Birch Society. 1 New Eastern Outlook 2022 2022 In the 2022 RfC, there is consensus to deprecate New Eastern Outlook. Editors note that it is considered a Russian propaganda outlet by multiple reliable sources, and numerous examples of publishing false content. 1 The New Republic 2020 2022 There is consensus that The New Republic is generally reliable. Most editors consider The New Republic attributed.1 New York (Vulture, The Cut, Grub Street, Daily Intelligencer) 1 2 3 4
2016There is consensus that New York magazine, including its subsidiary website Vulture, is generally reliable. There is no consensus on whether it is generally reliable for contentious statements. See also: Polygon, The Verge, Vox New York Daily News (Illustrated Daily News) 1 2 3 2020 Most editors consider the content of New York Daily News articles to be generally reliable, but question the accuracy of its tabloid-style headlines. 1 New York Post (NY Post, New York Evening Post, Page Six)
2020 2024
2024There is consensus that the New York Post is generally unreliable for factual reporting especially with regard to politics, particularly New York City politics. A tabloid newspaper, editors criticise its lack of concern for fact-checking or corrections, including a number of examples of outright fabrication. Editors consider the New York Post more reliable in the period before it changed ownership in 1976, and particularly unreliable for coverage involving the New York City Police Department.1
2The New York Times (NYT) WP:NYT 📌
2018 43[ai]
2022 There is consensus that The New York Times is 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
2011There is consensus that The New Yorker is generally reliable. Editors note the publication's robust fact-checking process. 1 The New Zealand Herald (NZ Herald) 2021 2021 There is consensus that The New Zealand Herald is generally reliable. 1 NewsBreak(News Break)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 2021 2021 NewsBlaze was unanimously deprecated by snowball clauseconsensus in the 2021 RFC. Editors cite NewsBlaze's publication of false and/or fabricated information, conspiracy theories, the site's sourcing practices, and copyright concerns.1
2Newslaundry 2020 2020 There is consensus that Newslaundry is generally reliable. Some editors have expressed concerns regarding possible bias in its political narratives and reporting on rival publications; in cases where this could reasonably apply, attribution is recommended, and sufficient. 1 News of the World
2019 2019 News of the World was deprecated in the 2019 RfC. There is consensus that News of the World is generally unreliable. As is the case with notability. Some editors consider News of the World usable for uncontroversial film reviews if attribution is provided. News of the World shut down in 2011; website content is no longer accessible unless archived.1
2Newsmax
2020 2022 Newsmax was deprecated by snowball clause consensus in the November 2020 RfC. Concerns of editors included that Newsmax lacks adherence to journalistic standards, launders propaganda, promulgates misinformation, promotes conspiracy theories and false information for political purposes, and promotes medical misinformation such as COVID-19-related falsehoods, climate change denialism, conspiracy theories, and anti-vaccination propaganda.1
2Newsweek (pre-2013) 2019
2019There is consensus that articles from Newsweek pre-2013 are generally reliable for news covered during that time. In 2011, Newsweek was a reputable magazine with only some minor problems while it was owned by WP:NEWSBLOG policy. See also: Newsweek (2013–present).1 Newsweek (2013–present)
2019 2022 Unlike articles before 2013, Newsweek articles since 2013 are not generally reliable. From 2013 to 2018, Newsweek was owned and operated by IBT Media, the parent company of International Business Times. IBT Media introduced a number of bad practices to the once reputable magazine and mainly focused on clickbait headlines over quality journalism. Its current relationship with IBT Media is unclear, and Newsweek's quality has not returned to its status prior to the 2013 purchase. Many editors have noted that there are several exceptions to this standard, so consensus is to evaluate Newsweek content on a case-by-case basis. See also: Newsweek (pre-2013). 1 The Next Web(TNW)1 2 3 4
2019There is no consensus on the reliability of The Next Web. Articles written by sponsored content.1 NGO Monitor (Non-governmental Organization Monitor) 2024 2024 There is a consensus that NGO Monitor is not reliable for facts. Editors agree that, despite attempts to portray itself otherwise, it is an advocacy organization whose primary goal is to attack organizations that disagree with it or with the Israeli government regarding the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Some editors also express concern about past attempts by NGO Monitor staff to manipulate coverage of itself on Wikipedia. 1 NME (New Musical Express) 1 2 2020 There is consensus that British publication NME is generally reliable for content related to its areas of expertise, which include music. 1 NNDB (Notable Names Database) WP:NNDB 📌2019 2019 NNDB is a biographical database operated by Soylent Communications, the parent company of circular sourcing.1 NPR (National Public Radio) 1 2 3 2020 There is consensus that NPR is generally reliable for news and statements of fact. NPR's attribution.1 Occupy Democrats (Washington Press) 2018 2018 In the 2018 RfC, there was clear consensus to deprecate Occupy Democrats as a source à la the primary sourcefor attributing opinions, viewpoints, and the like.1
2One America News Network (OANN) WP:OANN 📌2019 2019 In the 2019 RfC, there was clear consensus to deprecate One America News Network as a source à la the primary sourcewhen attributing opinions, viewpoints, and commentary, meaning that it should not be used as a source outside of its own article.1 The Onion 1 2 2019 The Onion is a satirical news website, and should not be used as a source for facts. 1 OpIndia
1 2 2020 Due to persistent abuse, OpIndia is on the outing policy, unless the editor is voluntarily disclosing the information on Wikipedia. Editors who are subject to legal risks due to their activity on Wikipedia may request assistance from the Wikimedia Foundation, although support is not guaranteed. See also: Swarajya.1
2Our Campaigns 2021 2021 Our Campaigns is considered generally unreliable due to its publishing of user-generated content.1 PanAm Post 2020 2023 2023 There is consensus that the PanAm Post is generally unreliable for factual reporting. Most editors consider the publication used by other sources that are reliableand only believe that its opinion section should be avoided.1 Patheos
2022 2022 Patheos is a website that hosts a collection of blogs. These blogs receive little editorial oversight and should be treated as self-published sources.1 La Patilla 2023 2023 La Patilla is considered marginally reliable as a news source covering Venezuela, with several additional considerations. Aggregated content should not be used at all. Avoid referencing articles on La Patilla that themselves reference unreliable sources, as editors have concerns about editorial oversight in such cases. Editors note a clear WP:BLPclaims.1 self-published)2020 2020 12[aj]
2020 Two RfCs found consensus that certain self-published peerage websites are not reliable for genealogical information and should be deprecated. See § Self-published peerage websitesfor the full list.List People 2013
2014There is consensus that People magazine can be a reliable source in biographies of living persons, but the magazine should not be used for contentious claims unless supplemented with a stronger source.1 People Make Games 2023 2023 There is consensus that People Make Games is generally reliable for the topic of video games, although care should be taken if using the source for WP:EXPERTSPS.— Pew Research Center 1 2
2012There is consensus that the Pew Research Center is generally reliable. PinkNews
2020 2022 There is rough consensus that PinkNews is generally reliable for factual reporting, but additional considerations may apply and caution should be used. Most of those who commented on PinkNews' reliability for statements about a person's sexuality said that such claims had to be based on direct quotes from the subject. 1 Playboy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
2015There is consensus that Playboy is generally reliable. Editors note the publication's reputation for high-quality interviews and fact-checking. 1 An Phoblacht 2020 2020 There is consensus that An Phoblacht is generally unreliable for news reporting, as it is a publication of attributed statements from Sinn Féin and some editors believe that the publication may also be used for attributed statements from the Provisional Irish Republican Army(IRA).1 The Points Guy (news and reviews) (TPG) 2018 2019 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
2The Points Guy (sponsored content) (TPG) 2018 2019 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 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6
2018Politico is considered generally reliable for American politics. A small number of editors say that Politico is a biasedsource.1 PolitiFact (PunditFact) 2016 2019
2019PolitiFact 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 attributionis given, as a primary source.1 Polygon 1 2 2020 Polygon is considered generally reliable for video games and pop culture related topics. See also: The Verge, Vox, New York 1 The Post Millennial
2020 2020 There is consensus that The Post Millennial is generally unreliable. Editors have noted multiple instances of inaccurate reporting, and consider the publication to be strongly biased. See also: Human Events. 1 PR Newswire
1 2 3 4 5 2019 There is consensus that PR Newswire is generally unreliable, as press releases published on the site are not subject to editorial oversight. Some articles may be used for uncontroversial claims about the article's author.1
2Press TV
2020 2021 2021 In the 2020 RfC, editors found a clear consensus to deprecate Press TV, owing to its status as an Iranian government propaganda outlet that publishes disinformation, conspiracy theories, antisemitic content including Holocaust denial,[25] and a host of other problematic content. Pride.com2020 2020 There is consensus that Pride.com is marginally reliable and that its articles should be evaluated for reliability on a case-by-case basis. Editors consider Pride.com comparable to BuzzFeed in its presentation. 1 Project Veritas (James O'Keefe, O'Keefe Media Group)
2021 2023 2023 Due to persistent abuse, Project Veritas is on the WP:ABOUTSELFclaims. Citations to O'Keefe's work and claims based on any such citations should be removed.1
2ProPublica 2019
2019There is a strong consensus that ProPublica is generally reliable for all purposes because it has an excellent reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, is widely cited by reliable sources, and has received multiple Pulitzer Prizes. 1 Quackwatch 2019 +13[ak]
2019Articles written by parity of sourcesshould be considered.1 Quadrant 2019 2019 Most editors consider Quadrant generally unreliable for factual reporting. The publication is a biased and opinionated source.1 Quartz1 2 2020 Quartz is considered generally reliable for factual reporting, although some editors argue that caution should be used for science and cryptocurrency topics. 1 Quillette 2020 2021 There is consensus that Quillette is generally unreliable for facts, with non-trivial minorities arguing for either full deprecation or "considerations apply". Quillette is primarily a publication of opinion, and thus actual usage in articles will usually be a question of whether or not it is WP:DUEfor an attributed opinion rather than whether it is reliable for a factual claim.1 Quora 1 2 3 4 2019 Quora is a policy on self-published sources.1 Radio Free Asia (RFA)
2021 2022 Radio Free Asia can be generally considered a reliable source. In particularly geopolitically-charged areas, attributionof its point of view and funding by the U.S. government may be appropriate. Per the result of a 2021 RfC, editors have established that there is little reason to think RFA demonstrates some systematic inaccuracy, unreliability, or level of government co-option that precludes its use.1 Rappler
1 2 3
2018There is consensus that staff content by Rappler is generally reliable. The IMHO section consists of opinions by readers, and not by paid staff. The defunct x.rappler.com section functioned as a self-published blogging service, and is therefore considered generally unreliable. 1 Rate Your Music (RYM, Cinemos, Glitchwave, Sonemic)
WP:RYM 📌2019 2019 Rate Your Music was deprecated in the 2019 RfC. The content on Rate Your Music is user-generated, and is considered generally unreliable.Raw Story
2021 2021 There is consensus that Raw Story is generally unreliable for factual reporting, based upon a pattern of publishing false and sensationalized stories. Editors almost unanimously agree that the source is in-text attributionshould accompany each use of the source.1 RealClearPolitics (RCP, RealClearInvestigations) 1 2 2021 There is no consensus as to RealClearPolitics's reliability. They appear to have the trappings of a reliable source, but their tactics in news reporting suggest they may be publishing non-factual or misleading information. Use as a source in a Wikipedia article should probably only be done with caution, and better yet should be avoided. 1
2Reason 1 2 3 2021 There is consensus that Reason is generally reliable for news and facts. Editors consider Reason to be a due weight.1 Reddit
1 2 3 4 5 2020 Reddit is a sources about themselvesapplies.1 RedState 1 2 2020 There is consensus that RedState should not be used as a source of facts. Opinion pieces from RedState are likely to be undue. 1 Red Ventures 2024 2024 There is consensus that the online properties of Red Ventures are generally unreliable post-acquisition. Editors express concern that Red Ventures, as a matter of policy, uses AI-authored content on its properties in a non-transparent and unreliable manner. No consensus was reached with respect to Red Ventures' print publications. Sources sold by Red Ventures in 2022 to Fandom were not discussed in the RfC. See also: CNET (November 2022–present), ZDNet (October 2020-present). The Register ("El Reg") 1 2 3 4 5
2017The Register is considered generally reliable for technology-related articles. Some editors say that The Register is biased or opinionated on topics involving Wikipedia.1 Religion News Service (RNS) 1 2 2020 Religion News Service is considered generally reliable. Use RNS with caution to verify contentious claims. 1 ResearchGate 1 2 3 4 2022 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 accesslink to the paper (which may be hosted on ResearchGate).1 Republic TV (Republic World)
2021 2021 In the 2021 RfC, there was a consistent and overwhelming consensus to deprecate Republic TV. Editors cite hoaxes, fake news, fabrication, misinformation and conspiracy theories. 1
2Reuters
1 2 3
2018Reuters is a Syndicated reports from Reuters that are published in other sources are also considered generally reliable. Press releasespublished by Reuters are not automatically reliable.1 RhythmOne (AllMusic, AllMovie, AllGame, All Media Guide, AllRovi)
26[al] 2021 RhythmOne (who acquired All Media Guide, formerly AllRovi) operates the websites notability.1
2
3RIA Novosti
1 2 3 4
2016RIA Novosti was 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
2Rolling Stone (culture)
2021 2021 There is consensus that Rolling Stone has generally reliable coverage on culture matters (i.e., films, music, entertainment, etc.). Rolling Stone's less weight than their full-length reviews, as they are subject to a lower standard of fact-checking. See also Rolling Stone (politics and society), 2011–present, Rolling Stone (Culture Council).1 Rolling Stone (politics and society, 2011–present)
2021 2021 According to a 2021 RfC discussion, there is unanimous consensus among editors that Rolling Stone is generally unreliable for politically and societally sensitive issues reported since 2011 (inclusive), though it must be borne in mind that this date is an estimate and not a definitive cutoff, as the deterioration of journalistic practices happened gradually. Some editors have said that low-quality reporting also appeared in some preceding years, but a specific date after which the articles are considered generally unreliable has not been proposed. Previous consensus was that Rolling Stone was generally reliable for political and societal topics before 2011. Most editors say that Rolling Stone is a scientificclaims should not be sourced to the publication.1 Rolling Stone (Culture Council) 2021 2021 There is unanimous consensus among editors that Culture Council articles (of URL form rollingstone.com/culture-council/*) are medical or scientific claimsis not allowed.1
2Rotten Tomatoes
2023 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2023 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 user-generated contentalong with a lack of oversight.1 Royal Central 2022 2022 The 2022 RfC found a consensus to deprecate Royal Central on the grounds that it lacked serious editorial standards and hosted plagiarized content. 1 RT (Russia Today, ANO TV-Novosti, Ruptly, Redfish, Maffick)
2020 2022 There is consensus that RT is an unreliable source, publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated. Many editors describe RT as a mouthpiece of the Russian government that engages in propaganda and disinformation. RTÉ (Raidió Teilifís Éireann) 2023 2023 RTÉ is an Irish public service broadcaster. There is consensus that RTÉ is generally reliable. 1 Salon.com
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2022 There is no consensus on the reliability of Salon.com. Editors consider Salon.com attributed.1 Science-Based Medicine WP:SBM 📌2019 2021 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 sourcesmay be relevant.1 ScienceBlogs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2012ScienceBlogs is an invitation-only network of blogs. There is no consensus on the reliability of ScienceBlogs articles in general. Most editors consider ScienceBlogs articles written by parity of sourcesmay be relevant.1 ScienceDirect topic page 1 2 3 2023 verifiability. Citations should be made to the actual, underlying publications quoted by the topic page.1 Scientific American (SA, SciAm) 1 2 2020 Scientific American is considered generally reliable for WP:MEDPOPto determine whether the publication's medical coverage should be used.1 SCOTUSblog
2021 2021 In a 2021 RfC, there was strong consensus that SCOTUSblog is opinionand analysis articles.1 Screen Rant 2021 2021 There is consensus that Screen Rant is a marginally reliable source. It is considered reliable for entertainment-related topics, but should not be used for controversial statements related to living persons.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:COPYVIOpolicy. 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 2020 2021 Scriptural texts, like the MOS:PLOTSOURCE.— Sherdog 2020 2020 In the 2020 RfC, Sherdog was determined to be not self-published and can be used for basic information on MMA fighters and matches. However, it is considered less reliable than ESPNand other generally reliable sources, so use with caution.1 Simple Flying
1 2 3 2023 Simple Flying is generally unreliable as a blog without a reputation for fact checking or reliability. 1
Sixth Tone (general topics) 2020 2020 Sixth Tone is usable for general non-political topics, such as Chinese society and culture. See also: Sixth Tone (politics). 1 Sixth Tone (politics) 2020 2020 Sixth Tone is published by the Shanghai United Media Group, which is government-controlled. Editors consider Sixth Tone generally unreliable for politics. See also: Sixth Tone (general topics). 1 The Skeptic's Dictionary 1 2 3 4 2020 The Skeptic's Dictionary is a book by parity of sourcesmay be relevant.1 The Skwawkbox 1 2 2020 The Skwawkbox is considered generally unreliable because it is biased or opinionated.1 Sky News Australia 2022 2022 In the 2022 RfC, there is a consensus that additional considerations apply to Sky News Australia, and that it should not be used to substantiate any exceptional claims. The talk shows for Sky News Australia engage in disinformation and should be considered generally unreliable. The majority of articles labeled as "news" contain short blurbs and video segments, which should similarly be considered unreliable. For articles with significant written content, caution is advised. Sky News Australia is not to be confused with the UK Sky News; the two are presently unafilliated. 1 Sky News (UK) 1 2 3 2022 Sky News (UK) is considered an ordinary WP:NEWSORGand is thus presumed generally reliable. Sky News UK is unaffiliated with Sky News Australia. Sky News UK has partial ownership of Sky News Arabia.1 Snopes
14[am] 2020 Snopes is certified by the parity of sourcesmay be relevant.1 SourceWatch1 2 3 2016 As an open wiki, SourceWatch is considered generally unreliable. SourceWatch is operated by the Center for Media and Democracy.1 South China Morning Post (SCMP, Sunday Morning Post) WP:SCMP 📌2020 2020 The South China Morning Post is widely considered to be the English-language newspaper of record in Hong Kong. In the 2020 RFC, there was consensus that the SCMP is generally reliable. However, in addition, there is a rough consensus that additional considerations may apply for the newspaper's coverage of certain topics, including the Chinese Communist Party and the SCMP's current owner, Alibaba. Editors may apply higher scrutiny when dealing with the SCMP's coverage of such topics. 1 Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) WP:SPLC 📌+19[an] 2021 The Southern Poverty Law Center is considered generally reliable on topics related to biographies of living personspolicy. Some editors have questioned the reliability of the SPLC on non-United States topics. SPLC classifications should not automatically be included in the lead section of the article about the group which received the classification. The decision to include should rather be decided on a case-by-case basis.1 Space.com 1 2 2021 Space.com may be reliable for astronomy and spaceflight news, and has a reputation for being generally accurate. Space.com articles often have a sensational tone, which might degrade their quality, so it is necessary to check author's qualification below the article. Care should also be taken as the site publishes a lot of syndicated material and is prone to occasional churnalism. 1 SparkNotes 1 2
2018SparkNotes 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 2020 The Spectator primarily consists of opinion pieces and these should be judged by WP:NEWSBLOG.1
2Spiegel Online, SPON)10[ao]
2018There is consensus that Der Spiegel is generally reliable. Articles written by Claas Relotius are fabrications, and are thus unreliable. 1 Spirit of Metal 1 2 2010 Spirit of Metal is considered a self-published sourceand generally unreliable.1 Sportskeeda
📌1 2 3 2021 Sportskeeda is considered generally unreliable due to a consensus that there is little or no editorial oversight over the website's content, which is largely user-written. 1 Sputnik
2020 2020 There is consensus that Sputnik is an unreliable source that publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail. Sputnik is considered a Russian propaganda outlet that engages in bias and disinformation,[26] a significant proportion of editors endorse that view, with some editors considering it less reliable than Breitbart News. See also: RIA Novosti, whose international edition was replaced by Sputnik.Stack Exchange (Stack Overflow, MathOverflow, Ask Ubuntu) 1 2 2018 Stack Exchange is a network of user-generated content, and is considered generally unreliable.StarsUnfolded 1 2 3 2020 There is consensus that StarsUnfolded is unreliable as it is a self-published source.1 Statista
1 2 3 4 5 2023 Statista aggregates statistical information from a number of sources, many of which are reliable. It is not the source of the statistics it displays, so should not be cited directly. It may be useful as a research tool to find sources of statistical information. 1 The Straits Times 2021 2021 The Straits Times is the largest newspaper in Singapore. There is consensus that it is generally reliable so long as the Singapore government is not involved in its coverage. However, since Singapore has a poor record on freedom of speech and press, and given known practices of self-censorship and political meddling into coverage, news related to Singapore politics, particularly for contentious claims, should be taken with a grain of salt. 1 The Sun (UK) (The Sun on Sunday, The Irish Sun, The Scottish Sun, The U.S. Sun)
2019 15[ap]
2020 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.Swarajya 1 2 3 2021 Due to persistent abuse, Swarajya is on the . 1 The Sydney Morning Herald 2021 2022 There is consensus that The Sydney Morning Herald is generally reliable. 1 Taki's Magazine (Takimag, Taki's Top Drawer) 2019 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 (ITAR-TASS, Telegraph Agency of the Soviet Union, Information Telegraph Agency of Russia) WP:TASS 📌2019 2022 2022 In a 2022 RfC, editors achieved a strong consensus that TASS is a biasedsource with respect to topics in which the Russian government may have an interest and that the source is generally unreliable for providing contentious facts in that context. Editors attained a rough consensus that TASS should not be deprecated at this time and a rough consensus that TASS is generally unreliable more broadly for facts, with the caveat that it is considered reliable for quotes of statements made by the Kremlin, the Russian State, and pro-Kremlin politicians.A previous 2019 RfC had concluded that reliability is unclear or additional considerations apply.
1
2TechCrunch
1 2 3 4
2018Careful 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 2019 Telesur was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the TV channel is a attributed.1
2TheWrap 1 2
2017As 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
2013Discussions of ThinkProgress are dated, with the most recent in 2013. Circumstances may have changed. Some consider ThinkProgress a form of partisan sourcefor the purposes of American politics.1 Time 1 2 3 4 5 2019 There is consensus that Time is generally reliable. Time's attribution.1 The Times (The Times of London, The London Times, The Sunday Times)
2022 2022 The Times, including its sister paper The Sunday Times, is considered generally reliable. 1
2
3The Times of India (TOI) WP:TOI 📌2020 2022 The Times of India is considered to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable. It has a bias in favor of the Indian government and is known to accept payments from persons and entities in exchange for positive coverage. 1
2TMZ WP:TMZ 📌13[aq]
2016There 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 based on rumor and speculation without named sources, it is recommended to explicitly living person.1 TorrentFreak (TF) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
2019Most 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
2010As 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 (TRT, Türkiye Radyo ve Televizyon, Turkish Radio and Television) WP:TRT 📌2019
2019Consensus 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) WP:TTAG 📌1 2 3 2019 The Truth About Guns is a undue weight.1 TV.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 2020 TV.com was largely user-generatedand generally unreliable. Some editors believe material published by its own staff may be cited. TV.com shut down in July 2021; website content is no longer accessible unless archived.1 TV Guide 1 2
2012TV Guide is considered generally reliable for television-related topics. Some editors consider TV Guide a primary sourcefor air dates.1
2TV Tropes
1 2 2016 TV Tropes is considered generally unreliable because it is an self-published source.1 Twitter (X)
WP:RSPX 📌45[ar] 2023 Twitter (rebranded to X since July 2023) is a social network. As a living persons.1 The Unz Review WP:UNZ 📌2021 2021 The Unz Review was deprecated by copyright violations.1
2Urban Dictionary 1 2 3 2020 Urban Dictionary is considered generally unreliable, because it consists solely of user-generated content.1 U.S. News & World Report 1 2 3 2020 There is consensus that U.S. News & World Report is generally reliable. 1 Us Weekly 1 2 3 4 5
2018There is no consensus on the reliability of Us Weekly. It is often considered less reliable than People magazine. 1 USA Today 1 2 3 4 5 2022 There is consensus that USA Today is generally reliable. Editors note the publication's robust editorial process and its centrist alignment. 1 USA Today contributors 1 2024 While articles on USA Today written by staff are generally reliable, some content is written by contributors, with minimal editorial oversight, and is generally unreliable.1 Vanity Fair
1 2 3 4 2021 Vanity Fair is considered generally reliable, including for biased or opinionated.1 Variety
1 2 3 4 5
2016As an entertainment trade magazine, Variety is considered a reliable source in its field. 1 VDARE 2018 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 2019 There is consensus that Venezuelanalysis is generally unreliable. Some editors consider Venezuelanalysis a attributed.1 VentureBeat 1 2
A B
2015VentureBeat is considered generally reliable for articles relating to businesses, technology and video games. 1 The Verge 2018
2019There 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. See also: Vox, Polygon, New York1 Veterans Today 2019 2019 2019 Due to persistent abuse, Veterans Today is on the secondary sourcein articles.1 VGChartz 2019 +10[as]
2019 In the 2019 RfC, editors unanimously agreed that VGChartz is generally unreliable. The site consists mainly of news articles that qualify as user-generated content. In addition, editors heavily criticize VGChartz for poor accuracy standards in its video game sales data, and its methodology page consists of wholly unverified claims.[27] If sources that are more reliable publish video game sales data for certain regions (usually The NPD Group, Chart-Track, and/or Media Create), it is strongly advised that editors cite those sources instead.1 Vice Media (Garage, Refinery29, Vice, Vice News, Motherboard) WP:VICE 📌1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2023 There is no consensus on the reliability of Vice Media publications. 1
2
3Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation (VOC) 1 2 2021 The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation is an American blog, considered to be an unreliable source due to misinformation and a generally poor reputation for fact checking and accuracy.1 Vogue 1 2 3 4
2018Vogue is considered generally reliable. Potentially contentious statements made by Vogue interview subjects can be attributedto the individual.1 Voice of America (VOA, VoA)
2021 2021 Voice of America is an American state-owned international radio broadcaster. It is considered to be generally reliable, though some editors express concerns regarding its neutrality and editorial independence from the U.S. government. 1 Voltaire Network 2020 2020 The Voltaire Network is considered unreliable due to its affiliation with conspiracy theorist Thierry Meyssan and its republication of articles from Global Research. Editors unanimously agreed to deprecate the Voltaire Network in the 2020 RfC. 1 Vox (Recode)
1 2 3 4 5 6 2022 Vox is considered generally reliable. Some editors say that Vox does not always delineate reporting and opinion content or that it is a 1 The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) WP:WSJ 📌1 2 3 4 5 2019 Most editors consider The Wall Street Journal generally reliable for news. Use WP:RSOPINIONfor opinion pieces.1 Washington Examiner 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2020 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 Washington Free Beacon
📌1 2 3 2020 Most editors consider the Washington Free Beacon to be generally unreliable as a source, particularly for material about BLPs or political topics. There was no consensus to deprecate it in a 2020 discussion. 1 The Washington Post (The Post, WaPo, TWP) WP:WAPO 📌17[at] 2021 Most editors consider The Washington Post generally reliable. Some editors note that WP:NEWSBLOGshould be used to evaluate blog posts on The Washington Post's website.1 The Washington Times 2021 2021 There is consensus that The Washington Times is a marginally reliable source for politics and science. Most editors agree that it is a Unification movementand related topics.1 Weather2Travel.com 1 2 2012 Weather2Travel is a website operated by UK-based Global Support Limited. It expressly disclaims all content as indicative only and unfit to be relied upon. Some editors expressed concerns it may have a conflict of interest by way of some commercial ties. 1 The Weekly Standard 1 2 3
2014The Weekly Standard is considered generally reliable, but much of their published content is partisan source.1 The Western Journal (Western Journalism) 2019 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 contentshould be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher.1 We Got This Covered
📌1 2 3 2022 We Got This Covered is generally unreliable due to its lack of editorial oversight, publication of unsubstantiated or false rumors, speculation claimed as fact, and contributions accepting from non-staff contributors. 1 WhatCulture
1 2 2020 WhatCulture is considered generally unreliable. Contributors "do not need to have any relevant experience or hold any particular qualifications" and editors note a poor record of fact checking. It is listed as an unreliable source by WikiProject Professional wrestling. 1 Who's Who (UK) 2022 2022 Who's Who (UK) is considered generally unreliable due to its poor editorial standards and history of publishing false or inaccurate information. Its content is supplied primarily by its subjects, so it should be regarded as a self-published source. See also: Marquis Who's Who.1 WhoSampled
1 2 2016 WhoSampled is almost entirely composed of self-published source.1 Wikidata WP:RSPWD 📌2013 2018 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
2018Uniquely 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
2021 14[au]
2021 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 (including The Signpost) WP:RSPWP 📌+21[av] 2021 WP:COPYWITHINfor instructions.1 The Wire (India) 2023 2023 The Wire is considered generally reliable under the news organizations guideline.1
2
3Wired (Wired UK) +10[aw]
2018Wired magazine is considered generally reliable for science and technology. 1
2WordPress.com 15[ax] 2021 WordPress.com is a living persons; this includes interviews, as even those cannot be authenticated.1 World Christian Database, World Christian Encyclopedia, and World Religion Database (WCD, WCE, WRD) WP:WCD 📌WP:WCE 📌WP:WRD 📌2022 2024 Additional considerations apply to the use of the World Christian Database, World Christian Encyclopedia, and World Religion Database. Editors should attribute factual information derived from the sources and they should generally not use them if other reliable sources are available. Scholars have advanced strong methodological critiques of the sources. However, they are published by Brill, and they are used with caution by reliable sources, including the Pew Research Center, Oxford Handbooks, and Cambridge reference works(some postdating the methodological critiques).1
2
3WorldNetDaily (WND) WP:WND 📌2018 16[ay]
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 contentshould be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher, and the citation should preferably point to the original publisher.1
2Worldometer (Worldometers) 1 2 3 2020 Worldometer is a WikiProject COVID-19 as a source for statistics on the COVID-19 pandemicand is considered generally unreliable for other topics.1 World Socialist Web Site (WSWS) WP:WSWS 📌1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2021 The World Socialist Web Site is the online news and information publication of the opinionated source. Some editors suggest that it may be more reliable for news related to labor issues.1 XBIZ 2021 2021 XBIZ is considered generally reliable for the adult industry. However, it publishes press releases/sponsored content without clearly delineating the distinction between their own journalism and the promotional content of others. Thus, editors should take care that the source is not used for content obviously or likely to be promotional. 1 Xinhua News Agency (New China News Agency)
2020 2021 Xinhua News Agency is the official state-run press agency of the People's Republic of China. There is consensus that Xinhua is generally reliable for factual reporting except in areas where the government of China may have a reason to use it for propaganda or disinformation. Xinhua is also generally reliable for the views and positions of the Chinese government and its officials. For subjects where the Chinese government may be a stakeholder, the consensus is almost unanimous that Xinhua cannot be trusted to cover them accurately and dispassionately; some editors favour outright deprecation because of its lack of inline attributionif you must use Xinhua.1
2Yahoo! News 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2021 Yahoo! News runs both original reporting and syndicated feeds of other sources. Editors have treated the original reporting as an ordinary WP:NEWSORG, and thus presumed generally reliable. Take care with syndicated content, which varies from highly reliable sources to very unreliable sources. Syndicated content should be evaluated as you would evaluate the original source. Syndicated content will have the original source's name and/or logo at the top.1 YouTube WP:RSPYT 📌2020 +21[az]
2020 Most videos on YouTube are anonymous, WP:VIDEOLINK.1 ZDNet(pre-October 2020)2024 2024 ZDNet is considered generally reliable for technology-related articles prior to its acquisition by Red Ventures in October 2020. 1 ZDNet(October 2020-present)2024 2024 ZDNet was acquired by digital marketing company Red Ventures in October 2020. There is consensus that ZDNet, along with other online properties of Red Ventures, is generally unreliable. Editors express concern that Red Ventures, as a matter of policy, uses AI-authored content on its properties in a non-transparent and unreliable manner. 1 Zero Hedge (ZeroHedge, ZH)
2020 2020 Zero Hedge was deprecated in the 2020 RfC due to its propagation of biased or opinionated.1 ZoomInfo 2020 2020 Due to persistent abuse, ZoomInfo is currently on the whitelistedbefore they can be used.1 Categories
Religious scriptures
See
WP:RSPSCRIPTURE.Self-published peerage websites
The following
self-published peeragewebsites have been deprecated in requests for comment:See § Peerage websites for the corresponding entry.
State-sponsored fake news sites
A limited number of sites are identified by credible sources (e.g. the EU's anti-disinformation East Stratcom Task Force) as disseminators of fake news. Many of these are state-sponsored. These sites are considered unreliable and should be blacklisted when identified. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 281 § RfC: Deprecation of fake news / disinformation sites.
Paid reporting in Indian news organizations
Even legitimate Indian
notability. This issue is distinct from that of journalism quality and bias, and that of sham news-style websites.Paid news is a highly pervasive and deeply integrated practice within Indian news media. Coverage related to the above mentioned entities requires extra vigilance given the diverse systemic approaches to paid news and the lack of clear disclosure practices in Indian media.
Exercise caution in using such sources for factual claims or to establish notability. Look at the tone and language of the article, its placement in the publication, use of generic bylines not identifying an individual reporter or reviewer, overlap in language with articles found in other publications and on other websites, and others. Examples of sponsored content include supplements published by
reliable sources noticeboard.Student media
Reputable student media outlets, such as The Harvard Crimson, are considered generally reliable sources for news on their school and local community.[29][30][31] They can sometimes be considered reliable on other topics, although professional sources are typically preferred when available.[30] However, given their local audience and lack of independence from their student body, student media does not contribute to notability for topics related to home institutions.[32]
Tabloids
Tabloids are types of news reporting characterized by sensationalistic stories. General consensus is that well-established tabloids should be used with care. They often repeat unverified rumors, have questionable fact-checking, and are often unsuitable for information about living people. When judging reliability of tabloids, editors often first assume its reliability to be mixed and then work it up or down.
Valnet
See Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources § Valnet.
See also
- External links/Perennial websites, a list of websites used as external links
- Fake news websites, a list of websites that intentionally publish hoaxes
- Neutrality of sources, an essay on the use of reliable, but non-neutral, sources
- New page patrol source guide, a list of sources organized by reliability, region, and topic
- Newspaper of record, newspapers whose editorial and news-gathering functions are considered authoritative
- Potentially unreliable sources, a list of questionable sources
- Satirical news websites, a list of websites that publish humorous fake news stories
- The Wikipedia CiteWatch, a bot-compiled list of potentially problematic sources, ranked by frequency of use
- Unreliable/Predatory Source Detector, a user script designed to detect unreliable sources
- Help:Introduction to referencing with Wiki Markup/reliable sources quiz for a quick quiz
Topic-specific pages
- WikiProject Africa/Africa Sources list – list of African sources
- WikiProject AfroCine/Reliable Sources – list of reliable sources for African cinema, theatre and arts
- WikiProject Albums/Sources, a list of sources about music
- WikiProject Video games/Sources – list of sources about video games
- WikiProject Film/Resources
- WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force#Guidelines on sources – list of sources (reliable and unreliable) for Indian cinema
- WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement/Sources
- WikiProject Korea/Reliable sources
- WikiProject Christian music/Sources
- WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources
- WP:OBITUARIES, an essay about using obituaries as sources
Templates and categories
Notes
- ^ This is the case for some of the most prestigious academic journals in the world, like Nature, The Lancet and Science.
- ^ For sources in a specific field, there may be more information about reliability of them provided by specific WikiProjects, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources.
- ^ See also these discussions of Advameg: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 A
- ^ See these discussions of BBC: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
- ^ See these discussions of Blogger: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
- ^ See also these discussions of Breitbart News: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 A
- ^ See also these discussions of BuzzFeed News: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
- ^ See these discussions of The Christian Science Monitor: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
- ^ See these discussions of CNET: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
- ^ See these discussions of CNN: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
- ^ See also these discussions of CounterPunch: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
- ^ See these discussions of The Daily Dot: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 A
- ^ See also these discussions of the Daily Mail: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52
- ^ See these discussions of The Daily Telegraph: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
- ^ See these discussions of Dotdash: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
- ^ See these discussions of Encyclopædia Britannica: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
- ^ See these discussions of Forbes.com contributors: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
- ^ WP:NEWSORG.
- ^ See also these discussions of Fox News (news excluding politics and science): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
- ^ See also these discussions of Fox News (politics and science): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
- ^ See these discussions of GlobalSecurity.org: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
- ^ See these discussions of The Guardian: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
- ^ See these discussions of The Guardian blogs: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
- ^ See these discussions of Haaretz: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
- ^ See these discussions of The Hill: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
- ^ See these discussions of HuffPost (excluding politics): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
- ^ See these discussions of HuffPost (politics): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
- ^ See these discussions of HuffPost contributors: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
- ^ See these discussions of IGN: 1 2 3 4 5 6 A B C D E F
- ^ See also these discussions of IMDb: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 A B C D E F
- ^ See also these discussions of Business Insider: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
- ^ See also these discussions of Media Matters for America: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
- ^ See also these discussions of the Media Research Center: 1 2 3 4 5 6
- ^ See these discussions of Metacritic: 1 2 A B C D E F G H
- ^ See also these discussions of The New York Times: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43
- ^ See also these discussions of peerage websites (self-published): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
- ^ See also these discussions of Quackwatch: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 A B
- ^ See these discussions of RhythmOne: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
- ^ See these discussions of Snopes: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
- ^ See these discussions of the Southern Poverty Law Center: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 A
- ^ See these discussions of Der Spiegel: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
- ^ See also these discussions of The Sun (UK): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
- ^ See these discussions of TMZ: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
- ^ See these discussions of Twitter: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
- ^ See also these discussions of VGChartz: A B C D E F G H I J
- ^ See these discussions of The Washington Post: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
- ^ See these discussions of WikiLeaks: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
- ^ See these discussions of Wikipedia: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 A
- ^ See these discussions of Wired: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A
- ^ See these discussions of WordPress.com: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
- ^ See also these discussions of WorldNetDaily: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
- ^ See also these discussions of YouTube: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 A
References
- ^ "Apple Daily: Hong Kong pro-democracy paper announces closure". BBC News. June 23, 2021. Archived from the original on June 24, 2021. Retrieved June 24, 2021.
- ^ Sato, Mia (July 6, 2023). "G/O Media's AI 'innovation' is off to a rocky start". The Verge. Retrieved February 27, 2024.
- ^ "Ballotpedia: About". Ballotpedia. Archived from the original on November 7, 2018. Retrieved October 23, 2018.
- ^ Bond, Paul (December 2, 2018). "TheBlaze and CRTV Merge to Create Conservative Media Powerhouse (Exclusive)". The Hollywood Reporter. Archived from the original on December 18, 2018. Retrieved December 23, 2018.
- ^ Mitchell, Amy; Gottfried, Jeffrey; Kiley, Jocelyn; Matsa, Katerina Eva (October 21, 2014). "Media Sources: Distinct Favorites Emerge on the Left and Right". Pew Research Center. Archived from the original on October 20, 2018. Retrieved October 23, 2018.
- ^ Wang, Shan (September 15, 2017). "BuzzFeed's strategy for getting content to do well on all platforms? Adaptation and a lot of A/B testing". Nieman Lab. Archived from the original on November 21, 2018. Retrieved October 23, 2018.
- ^ Wang, Shan (July 18, 2018). "The investigations and reporting of BuzzFeed News – *not* BuzzFeed – are now at their own BuzzFeedNews.com". Nieman Lab. Archived from the original on November 30, 2018. Retrieved October 23, 2018.
- ^ Waclawiak, Karolina (May 5, 2023). "A Final Editor's Note". BuzzFeed News. Retrieved June 21, 2023.
- ^ Harris, Malcolm (September 19, 2018). "The Big Secret of Celebrity Wealth (Is That No One Knows Anything)". The New York Times. Archived from the original on September 27, 2018. Retrieved September 29, 2018.
- ^ Sato, Mia (August 9, 2023). "CNET is deleting old articles to try to improve its Google Search ranking". The Verge. Retrieved August 10, 2023.
- ^ "Our Portfolio". Digital Currency Group. Archived from the original on August 23, 2018. Retrieved November 21, 2018.
- ^ Lord Hague urges Culture Secretary to ‘intervene’ on Telegraph sale
- ^ "Fact Check: Is Mohammed the Most Popular Name for Newborn Boys in the Netherlands?". Snopes.com. Retrieved April 29, 2018.
- ^ "Carson Didn't Find HUD Errors". FactCheck.org. April 19, 2017. Retrieved April 29, 2018.
- ^ Dreyfuss, Emily (May 3, 2017). "RIP About.com". Wired. Archived from the original on August 25, 2018. Retrieved December 29, 2018.
- ^ Shields, Mike (December 18, 2017). "About.com had become a web relic, so its owner blew it up – and now it's enjoying a surge in revenue". Business Insider. Archived from the original on June 25, 2018. Retrieved December 29, 2018.
- ^ "Contribute – Find A Grave". www.findagrave.com. Archived from the original on July 31, 2018. Retrieved July 30, 2018.
- ^ Davis, Wes (July 8, 2023). "Gizmodo's staff isn't happy about G/O Media's AI-generated content". The Verge. Retrieved February 27, 2024.
- ^ Vincent, James (May 7, 2021). "LiveLeak, the internet's font of gore and violence, has shut down". The Verge. Archived from the original on May 15, 2021. Retrieved May 15, 2021.
- ^ See https://kanalregister.hkdir.no/publiseringskanaler/KanalForlagInfo.action?id=26778 (the publisher's summary page) and click on "Vis [+]" in "Assosierte tidsskrift" line to see the list and their ratings. As of February 2024, 13 (5.2%) of the 250 journals listed were rated X (under review) and 11 (4.4%) were rated 0 (unsuitable for scholarly publications, although they do not label them as predatory per se).]
- ^ Plunkett, Luke (December 5, 2019). "RIP Gamerankings.com". Kotaku. G/O Media. Retrieved December 6, 2019.
- ^ "GameRankings Shutting down". Archived from the original on December 4, 2019.
- Gamasutra. Retrieved December 5, 2019.
- ^ Platt, Edward (August 4, 2015). "Inside the Morning Star, Britain's last communist newspaper". New Statesman. Archived from the original on February 7, 2019. Retrieved January 31, 2019.
- ^ Anti-Defamation League (October 17, 2013). "Iran's Press TV: Broadcasting Anti-Semitism to the English-Speaking World" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on January 3, 2019. Retrieved August 8, 2018.
- ^ MacFarquhar, Neil (August 28, 2016). "A Powerful Russian Weapon: The Spread of False Stories". The New York Times. Archived from the original on February 21, 2017. Retrieved August 29, 2016.
- Gamasutra. Retrieved October 3, 2014.
- ^ "Can we trust Wikipedia? 1.4 billion people can't be wrong". The Independent. February 19, 2018. Archived from the original on February 11, 2019. Retrieved February 22, 2019.
- ^ "Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 134". Wikipedia. October 2012. Retrieved April 22, 2020.
- ^ a b "Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 288". Wikipedia. March 2020. Retrieved April 22, 2020.
- ^ "Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 46". Wikipedia. October 2009.
- ^ "Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 366". Wikipedia. January 2022.
External links
- Meta:Cite Unseen, a user script that helps readers quickly evaluate the sources used in a given English Wikipedia article
- Google custom search of generally reliable sources listed on this page
- Google custom search for generally reliable sources for video games