Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Wikipedia:RSNP
)

The reliability of a source greatly affects what information it can be used to support, or whether it should be used at all.

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.

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

How to use this list

Refer to the

consensus
, and is intended as a useful summary.

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

Consider the type of content being referenced, alongside the reliability of the sources cited.

living persons
typically require the most weighty ones.

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.

reliable sources noticeboard
(RSN), following the instructions at the top of that page, where you can "Search the noticeboard archives":

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. "

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
"

How to improve this list

reliable sources noticeboard
.

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

forum shopping
.

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

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

Inclusion criteria

For a source to be added to this list, editors generally expect two or more significant discussions about the source's reliability in the past, or an uninterrupted

reliable sources noticeboard
. For a discussion to be considered significant, most editors expect no fewer than two qualifying participants for RSN discussions where the source's name is in the section heading, and no fewer than three qualifying participants for all other discussions. Qualifying participants are editors who make at least one comment on the source's reliability.

Instructions

Any editor may improve this list. Please refer to the

the talk page
if you get stuck.

Legend

Sources

Perennial sources
Source Status
(legend)
Discussions Uses
List Last Summary
112 Ukraine Generally unreliable Request for comment 2019 Spam blacklist request 2020 Request for comment 2020

1
A B

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 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
ABC News Generally reliable 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
Academia.edu No consensus 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Ad Fontes Media
Generally unreliable 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 source
and have questioned its methodology.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Advameg (City-Data
)
Blacklisted Generally unreliable Request for comment 2019 Spam blacklist request 2019 Request for comment 2019

+14[c]

2019 Advameg operates
WP:COPYLINK
prohibits linking to copyright violations.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links +43
The Age Generally reliable Request for comment 2021 2021 The Age is a newspaper based in Melbourne, Australia. There is consensus that it is generally reliable. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Agence France-Presse (AFP) Generally reliable 1 2 2020 Agence France-Presse is a
Syndicated
reports from Agence France-Presse that are published in other sources are also considered generally reliable.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Aljazeera.com)
 📌
Generally reliable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 2023 Al Jazeera is a Qatari
news blogs
should be handled with the corresponding policy.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
Al Mayadeen
Deprecated Request for comment 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Alexa Internet No consensus Request for comment 2022

1 2 3
A

2022 Alexa Internet was a web traffic analysis company owned by
infoboxes
.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
AllSides
No consensus Request for comment 2022

1 2 3 4 5

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 HTTPS links HTTP links
AlterNet Generally unreliable 1 2 3 4 5 2019 There is consensus that AlterNet is generally unreliable. Editors consider AlterNet a
syndicated content
should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher, and the citation should preferably point to the original publisher.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Amazon
Generally unreliable 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.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
3 HTTPS links HTTP links
4 HTTPS links HTTP links
5 HTTPS links HTTP links
6 HTTPS links HTTP links
7 HTTPS links HTTP links
8 HTTPS links HTTP links
9 HTTPS links HTTP links
10 HTTPS links HTTP links
11 HTTPS links HTTP links
12 HTTPS links HTTP links
13 HTTPS links HTTP links
14 HTTPS links HTTP links
15 HTTPS links HTTP links
16 HTTPS links HTTP links
The American Conservative (TAC) No consensus Request for comment 2019 Request for comment 2020 Request for comment 2021

1

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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Amnesty International (Amnesty, AI) Generally reliable Request for comment 2022

1 2

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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Anadolu Agency (general topics) (AA) No consensus Request for comment 2019 Stale discussions
2019
The 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
Anadolu Agency (controversial topics, international politics) (AA) Generally unreliable Request for comment 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
Ancestry.com
Generally unreliable 1 2 3 4 5 6 2021 Ancestry.com is a
user-generated content
, which is unreliable.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
ANNA News (Abkhazian Network News Agency, Analytical Network News Agency) Deprecated Request for comment 2022

1

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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Answers.com (WikiAnswers) Generally unreliable 1 2 3 4 2010 Answers.com (previously known as WikiAnswers) is a
circular sourcing
.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Anti-Defamation League (ADL)
WP:RSPADL 📌
Generally reliable Request for comment 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6

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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Antiwar.com Generally unreliable 1 2 3 4 2011 There is consensus that Antiwar.com is generally unreliable. Editors consider Antiwar.com to be
biased or opinionated
.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
Aon Generally reliable Request for comment 2022

1

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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Apple Daily No consensus Request for comment 2020

1

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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Arab News No consensus Request for comment 2020

1 2 3

2020 There is consensus that Arab News is a usable source for topics unrelated to the
attribution
for its coverage in this area. Some editors consider Arab News unreliable for matters related to the Saudi Arabian government.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Army Recognition Generally unreliable 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Ars Technica Generally reliable 1 2 3 2022 Ars Technica is considered generally reliable for science- and technology-related articles. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
arXiv
WP:ARXIV 📌
Generally unreliable 1 2 3 4

A B

2015 arXiv is a
self-published source, and is generally unreliable with the exception of papers authored by established subject-matter experts. Verify whether a paper on arXiv is also published in a peer-reviewed academic journal; in these cases, cite the more reliable journal and provide an open access
link to the paper (which may be hosted on arXiv).
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Asian News International (ANI)
WP:RSPANI 📌
No consensus Request for comment 2021 2021 Asian News International is an Indian
questionable
and generally unreliable due to its reported dissemination of pro-government propaganda.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
AskMen No consensus 1 2 3 4 5 6 2020 There is no consensus on the reliability of AskMen. See also: IGN. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Association of Religion Data Archives (ARDA, Pew–Templeton Global Religious Futures)


No consensus 2018

Request for comment 2022

2022 No consensus on reliability; rough consensus to use the sources with in-text attribution and to prefer the use of stronger sources. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links 1 HTTPS links HTTP links 1 HTTPS links HTTP links 1 HTTPS links HTTP links 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Associated Press (AP) Generally reliable 1 2 3 4 5 6 Stale discussions
2018
The Associated Press is a
Syndicated
reports from the Associated Press that are published in other sources are also considered generally reliable.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Atlantic (The Atlantic Monthly) Generally reliable 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Atlas Obscura "places" articles
Generally unreliable 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Atlas Obscura "articles" articles
Generally reliable 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Australian Generally reliable 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) No consensus Request for comment 2021 2021 There is consensus that use of Australian Strategic Policy Institute should be evaluated for
biased or opinionated source
that 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
The A.V. Club Generally reliable 1 2 3 4

A

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 HTTPS links HTTP links
AVN (Adult Video News, AVN Magazine) Generally reliable Request for comment 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Axios Generally reliable 1 2 2020 There is consensus that Axios is generally reliable. Some editors consider Axios to be a
due weight
.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Baidu Baike
Deprecated Request for comment 2020

1 2 3 4

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 kuso
originated from Baidu Baike.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
3 HTTPS links HTTP links
4 HTTPS links HTTP links
Ballotpedia
No consensus 1 2 3 Stale discussions
2016
There is no consensus on the reliability of Ballotpedia. The site has an editorial team and accepts error corrections, but some editors do not express strong confidence in the site's editorial process. Discussions indicate that Ballotpedia used to be an
user-generated content at some point. Currently, the site claims: "Ballotpedia's articles are 100 percent written by our professional staff of more than 50 writers and researchers."[3]
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation)
WP:RSPBBC 📌
Generally reliable 17[d] 2021 BBC is a British
Statements of opinion
should conform to the corresponding guideline.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
Behind the Voice Actors
Generally reliable Request for comment 2022

1 2 3 4
A

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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Bellingcat Generally reliable Request for comment 2019

1 2 3 4 5 6

2021 There is consensus that Bellingcat is generally reliable for news and should preferably be used with
biased
source.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
bestgore.com Blacklisted Deprecated Request for comment 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Bild
WP:BILD 📌
Generally unreliable 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Biography.com
No consensus 1 Stale discussions
2018
There is no consensus on the reliability of Biography.com. Some editors consider the source reliable because of its backing from A&E Networks and references to the website in news media. Others point to discrepancies between information on Biography.com and on more established sources, and an unclear fact-checking process. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Blaze Media (BlazeTV, Conservative Review, CRTV, TheBlaze) Generally unreliable 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
Blogger (blogspot.com) Generally unreliable 21[e] 2020 Blogger is a
living persons
; this includes interviews, as even those cannot be authenticated.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Bloomberg (Bloomberg News, Bloomberg Businessweek) Generally reliable 1 2 3 4 Stale discussions
2019
Bloomberg publications, including Bloomberg News and Bloomberg Businessweek, are considered generally reliable for news and business topics. See also: Bloomberg profiles. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
Bloomberg profiles No consensus 1 2 Stale discussions
2018
Bloomberg company and executive profiles are generally considered to be based on company press releases and should only be used as a source for uncontroversial information. There is consensus that these profiles should not be used to establish
self-published sources. See also: Bloomberg
.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Boing Boing No consensus 1 2 3 Stale discussions
2019
There is no consensus on the reliability of Boing Boing. Although Boing Boing is a
copyright law
.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Breitbart News
Blacklisted Deprecated Request for comment 2018 Spam blacklist request 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
BroadwayWorld Generally unreliable 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Burke's Peerage Generally reliable Request for comment 2020

1

2020 Burke's Peerage is considered generally reliable for genealogy. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Bustle No consensus Request for comment 2019 Stale discussions
2019
There is consensus that the reliability of Bustle is unclear and that its reliability should be decided on an instance-by-instance basis. Editors noted that it has an editorial policy and that it will issue retractions. Editors also noted previous issues it had around reliability and that its content is written by freelance writers – though there is no consensus on whether this model affects their reliability. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
BuzzFeed
No consensus 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Stale discussions
2018
Editors find the quality of BuzzFeed articles to be highly inconsistent. A 2014 study from the Pew Research Center found BuzzFeed to be the least trusted news source in America.[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 HTTPS links HTTP links
BuzzFeed News
Generally reliable 10[g] 2021 There is consensus that BuzzFeed News is generally reliable. BuzzFeed News operated separately from
WP:RSOPINION. BuzzFeed News shut down in May 2023, and its archives remain accessible.[8] See also: BuzzFeed
.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
California Globe
Generally unreliable Request for comment 2021 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Canary Generally unreliable Request for comment 2021

1 2 3 4

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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Cato Institute No consensus 1 2 Stale discussions
2015
The Cato Institute is considered generally reliable for its opinion. Some editors consider the Cato Institute an authoritative source on
attributed
.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
CelebrityNetWorth (CNW)

WP:CNW 📌
Generally unreliable 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) No consensus Request for comment 2020 2020 The Center for Economic and Policy Research is an
attributed
.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Centre for Research on Globalisation
(CRG, Global Research, globalresearch.ca)
Blacklisted Generally unreliable Spam blacklist request 2019

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2019 Due to persistent abuse, Global Research is on the
parity of sources
should be considered.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
3 HTTPS links HTTP links
CESNUR (Centro Studi sulle Nuove Religioni, Center for Studies on New Religions, Bitter Winter)
WP:CESNUR 📌
Generally unreliable Request for comment 2022

1 2 3 4

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 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
3 HTTPS links HTTP links
ChatGPT and other large language models
Generally unreliable 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
China Daily
No consensus Request for comment 2021

1

2021
inline citations
when sourcing content to China Daily.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
3 HTTPS links HTTP links
China Global Television Network (CGTN, CCTV International)
WP:CGTN 📌
Deprecated Request for comment 2020

1 2

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 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Christian Science Monitor (CSM, CS Monitor)
Generally reliable 20[h] Stale discussions
2016
The Christian Science Monitor is considered generally reliable for news. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
CliffsNotes No consensus 1 2 Stale discussions
2018
CliffsNotes is a study guide. Editors consider CliffsNotes usable for superficial analyses of literature, and recommend supplementing CliffsNotes citations with additional sources. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Climate Feedback Generally reliable 1 2 3 4 2020 Climate Feedback is a
self-published source
due to its high reviewer requirements.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
CNET (pre–October 2020) Generally reliable Request for comment 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
CNET (October 2020–October 2022) No consensus Request for comment 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
CNET (November 2022–present)
WP:CNET 📌
Generally unreliable Request for comment 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
SEO rankings. CNET never formally disclosed of its use of AI until Futurism and The Verge
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 HTTPS links HTTP links
CNN (Cable News Network)
WP:RSPCNN 📌
Generally reliable Request for comment 2019 Request for comment 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Coda Media (Coda Story) Generally reliable Request for comment 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
CoinDesk
Generally unreliable Request for comment 2018 Request for comment 2019

1 2 3 4

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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Common Sense Media (CSM)
WP:CSM 📌
Generally reliable 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Consortium News
Generally unreliable 1 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Conversation
Generally reliable 1 2 3 Stale discussions
2019
The Conversation publishes articles from academics who are
WP:RSOPINION
.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Cosmopolitan No consensus 1 2 3 4 5 Stale discussions
2019
There is no consensus on the reliability of Cosmopolitan. It is generally regarded as a situational source, which means context is important. The treatment of Cosmopolitan as a source should be decided on a case-by-case basis, depending on the article and the information to be verified. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Correo del Orinoco Generally unreliable Request for comment 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
CounterPunch
Generally unreliable Request for comment 2021 Request for comment 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
Cracked.com Generally unreliable 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Cradle
Deprecated Request for comment 2024

1

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 theories
and wide referencing of other deprecated sources while doing so. Editors consider The Cradle to have a poor reputation for fact-checking.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Crunchbase
Deprecated Request for comment 2019

1 2

2019 In the 2019 RfC, there was consensus to deprecate Crunchbase, but also to continue allowing
user-generated content
.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Daily Beast
No consensus 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Daily Caller
Deprecated Request for comment 2019

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

2019 The Daily Caller was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the site publishes false or fabricated information. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
3 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Daily Dot
No consensus Request for comment 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 weight
before citing it in an article.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Daily Express
Generally unreliable 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
Daily Kos
Generally unreliable 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Daily Mail (MailOnline)

WP:RSPDM 📌
Deprecated Request for comment 2017 Request for comment 2019 Request for comment 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.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
3 HTTPS links HTTP links
4 HTTPS links HTTP links
5 HTTPS links HTTP links
6 HTTPS links HTTP links
7 HTTPS links HTTP links
8 HTTPS links HTTP links
9 HTTPS links HTTP links
10 HTTPS links HTTP links
11 HTTPS links HTTP links
12 HTTPS links HTTP links
13 HTTPS links HTTP links
Daily Mirror (Mirror)
No consensus 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Daily NK
No consensus Request for comment 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Daily Star (UK)
Deprecated Request for comment 2020

1 2 3 4

2020 The Daily Star was deprecated in the 2020 RfC due to its reputation for publishing false or fabricated information. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Daily Telegraph (UK) (The Telegraph, The Sunday Telegraph) Generally reliable Request for comment 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Daily Wire Generally unreliable Request for comment 2021

1 2 3 4

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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Deadline Hollywood
Generally reliable 1 2 3 4 5 6 Stale discussions
2019
Deadline Hollywood is considered generally reliable for entertainment-related articles. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
Debrett's Generally reliable Request for comment 2020

1

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
independent
as the details were solicited from the subjects. Editors have also raised concerns that this section included paid coverage.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Democracy Now! No consensus 1 2 3 4 5 Stale discussions
2013
There is no consensus on the reliability of Democracy Now!. Most editors consider Democracy Now! a
Syndicated content
published by Democracy Now! should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Deseret News Generally reliable 1 2 3 4 2022 The Deseret News is considered generally reliable for local news. It is owned by a subsidiary of
primary source
as an official publication of the LDS Church.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Deutsche Welle (DW, DW-TV) Generally reliable 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Dexerto No consensus Request for comment 2019 Request for comment 2023

1 2

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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Digital Spy Generally reliable 1 2 3 4 5

A

Stale discussions
2012
There is consensus that Digital Spy is generally reliable for entertainment and popular culture. Consider whether the information from this source constitutes
due or undue weight
.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Diplomat
Generally reliable 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Discogs

Generally unreliable Request for comment 2019

1 2 3 4 5

2019 The content on Discogs is
external links
to the site may be appropriate.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Distractify Generally unreliable 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Dotdash (About.com, The Balance, Lifewire, The Spruce, ThoughtCo, TripSavvy, Verywell
)
No consensus Spam blacklist request 2018 Spam blacklist request 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
.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
3 HTTPS links HTTP links
4 HTTPS links HTTP links
5 HTTPS links HTTP links
6 HTTPS links HTTP links
7 HTTPS links HTTP links
8 HTTPS links HTTP links
9 HTTPS links HTTP links
10 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Economist Generally reliable Request for comment 2022

1 2 3 4

2022 Most editors consider The Economist generally reliable. The Economist publishes exclusively
magazine blogs
and several podcasts, which should be handled with the respective guidelines.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Electronic Intifada (EI) Generally unreliable Request for comment 2024

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Encyclopædia Britannica Online)
 📌
No consensus 15[p] 2022 Encyclopædia Britannica is a quality general encyclopedia (including its online edition,
secondary sources
over 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Encyclopædia Iranica Generally reliable 1 2 3 4 5 2022 The Encyclopædia Iranica is considered generally reliable for Iran-related topics. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Encyclopaedia Metallum (Metal Archives, MA)
Generally unreliable 1 2 2016 Encyclopaedia Metallum is
user-generated and so best avoided. It is listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources § Unreliable sources
.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Encyclopedia Astronautica No consensus Request for comment 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Engadget Generally reliable 1

A

Stale discussions
2012
Engadget is considered generally reliable for technology-related articles. Its statements should be
attributed
.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Entertainment Weekly (EW) Generally reliable 1 2 3

A

Stale discussions
2018
Entertainment Weekly is considered generally reliable for entertainment-related articles. There is no consensus on whether it is reliable for other topics. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Entrepreneur (Entrepreneur India) No consensus Request for comment 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 churnalism
and may include improperly disclosed paid pieces.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Deprecated Request for comment 2019

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

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 theories
as fact.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
3 HTTPS links HTTP links
4 HTTPS links HTTP links
5 HTTPS links HTTP links
6 HTTPS links HTTP links
7 HTTPS links HTTP links
8 HTTPS links HTTP links
9 HTTPS links HTTP links
10 HTTPS links HTTP links
11 HTTPS links HTTP links
12 HTTPS links HTTP links
13 HTTPS links HTTP links
14 HTTPS links HTTP links
15 HTTPS links HTTP links
16 HTTPS links HTTP links
17 HTTPS links HTTP links
18 HTTPS links HTTP links
19 HTTPS links HTTP links
20 HTTPS links HTTP links
Evening Standard (London Evening Standard) No consensus 1 2 3 4 5 6 Stale discussions
2018
There is no consensus on the reliability of the Evening Standard. Despite being a free newspaper, it is generally considered more reliable than most British tabloids and middle-market newspapers. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Examiner.com Blacklisted Generally unreliable Spam blacklist request 2009

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2014 Due to persistent abuse, Examiner.com is on the
The San Francisco Examiner
, which has moved to a different domain. Examiner.com was shut down in 2016; website content is no longer accessible unless archived.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Facebook
WP:RSPFB 📌

Generally unreliable Request for comment 2020

1 2 3

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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) No consensus Request for comment 2010

1 2 3 4 5

Stale discussions
2014
There is no consensus on the reliability of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. However, there is strong consensus that publications from FAIR should not be used to support
opinions
.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
FamilySearch Generally unreliable 1 2 3 4 5 6 2018 FamilySearch operates a
original research
.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Famous Birthdays

Blacklisted Generally unreliable Spam blacklist request 2019

1 2 3 4 5

2019 Due to persistent abuse, Famous Birthdays is on the
living persons
.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Fandom wikis (Wikia, Wikicities)
WP:FANDOM 📌

Generally unreliable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

A

2019 Fandom (formerly Wikia and Wikicities) wikis are considered generally unreliable because
policies and guidelines
after 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.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
3 HTTPS links HTTP links
4 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Federalist Generally unreliable Request for comment 2021 2021 The Federalist is generally unreliable for facts due to its
attributed
opinions.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Financial Times (FT) Generally reliable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Stale discussions
2018
The Financial Times is considered generally reliable. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Find a Grave Generally unreliable 1 2 3 4 5 6 2021 The content on Find a Grave is
copyright violations
.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Findmypast Generally unreliable 1 2 3 4 5 2019 Findmypast is a
The Wikipedia Library previously offered access
to Findmypast.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Flags of the World (FOTW)
WP:FOTW 📌
Generally unreliable 1 2 3 4

A

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 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
Flickr Generally unreliable 1 2 3 2020 Most photos on Flickr are anonymous,
original research
.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Forbes
WP:FORBES 📌
Generally reliable 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Forbes.com contributors
 📌
Generally unreliable 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Fox News[r] (news excluding politics and science)
No consensus Request for comment 2010 Request for comment 2020 Request for comment 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
Fox News[r] (politics and science)
Generally unreliable Request for comment 2010 Request for comment 2020 Request for comment 2022 Request for comment 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Fox News[r] (talk shows) Generally unreliable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2020 Fox News talk shows, including . 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
FrontPage Magazine (FPM, FrontPageMag.com)
WP:FPM 📌
Deprecated Request for comment 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

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 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
Game Developer (Gamasutra) Generally reliable 1 2

A

2020 Game Developer is considered generally reliable for subjects related to video games. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
Game Informer Generally reliable 1 2

A B C D

2021 Game Informer is considered generally reliable for video games. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Gateway Pundit (TGP) Deprecated Request for comment 2019

1

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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Gawker Generally unreliable Request for comment 2019

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Gazeta Wyborcza Generally reliable 1 2 2021 There is consensus that Gazeta Wyborcza is generally reliable. Some editors concern about its sensationalist tendency in recent years. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
GB News Generally unreliable 1 2022 There is consensus that GB News is generally unreliable. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
Geni.com Generally unreliable 1 2 3 4 5 2019
original research
.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Genius (Rap Genius)
 📌
No consensus 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) (names and locations) Generally reliable Request for comment 2021

1

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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) (feature classes) Generally unreliable Request for comment 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
GEOnet Names Server (GNS) (names and locations) No consensus Request for comment 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
GEOnet Names Server (GNS) (feature classes) Generally unreliable Request for comment 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Gizmodo Generally reliable 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Global Times (Huanqiu Shibao)
Deprecated Request for comment 2020

1 2 3 4 5

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 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
GlobalSecurity.org
Generally unreliable Request for comment 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Globe and Mail Generally reliable Request for comment 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Goodreads
Generally unreliable 1 2 2018 Goodreads is a
self-published source
, Goodreads is considered generally unreliable.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Google Maps (Google Street View)
No consensus 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
GQ (GQ Magazine) Generally reliable 1 2 Stale discussions
2019
There 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.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
3 HTTPS links HTTP links
4 HTTPS links HTTP links
5 HTTPS links HTTP links
6 HTTPS links HTTP links
7 HTTPS links HTTP links
8 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Grayzone
Deprecated Request for comment 2020

1

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 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Green Papers No consensus Request for comment 2020

1

A

2020 There is no consensus on the reliability of The Green Papers. As a
United States election
results, some editors question the site's editorial oversight.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
TheGuardian.com, The Manchester Guardian, The Observer)

 📌
Generally reliable 15[v] Stale discussions
2019
There is consensus that The Guardian is generally reliable. The Guardian's op-eds should be handled with
biased or opinionated for politics. See also: The Guardian blogs
.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
3 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Guardian blogs No consensus 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
3 HTTPS links HTTP links
Guido Fawkes
Generally unreliable 1 2 3 4 2020 The Guido Fawkes website (order-order.com) is considered generally unreliable because it is a
living persons
.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Guinness World Records No consensus 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Haaretz (Ḥadashot Ha'aretz)
Generally reliable 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
UK Parliament transcripts, House of Commons, House of Lords
)
No consensus 1 2 3 4 Stale discussions
2019
As a transcript of parliament proceedings in the United Kingdom, Hansard is a
secondary source as it merely contains the personal opinions of whoever is speaking in Parliament that day, and is subject to Parliamentary privilege
. Hansard is not a word-for-word transcript and may omit repetitions and redundancies.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
3 HTTPS links HTTP links
4 HTTPS links HTTP links
5 HTTPS links HTTP links
6 HTTPS links HTTP links
Healthline
Blacklisted Deprecated Request for comment 2023

1 2

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:MEDRS
and to blacklist Healthline as a hazard to readers. References to Healthline should be removed from Wikipedia.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Heat Street Generally unreliable 1 2 2017 Although Heat Street was owned by
due weight
must be considered because Heat Street covers many political topics not as talked about in higher-profile sources.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Heavy.com
No consensus 1 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Hill
Generally reliable 10[y] Stale discussions
2019
The Hill is considered generally reliable for American politics. The publication's
self-published sources
.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Hindu
Generally reliable 1 2 3 4 2022 There is consensus that The Hindu is generally reliable and should be treated as a
opinion pieces
should be handled with the appropriate guideline.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
HispanTV
Deprecated Request for comment 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
History (The History Channel)
Generally unreliable 1 2 3 2021 Most editors consider
conspiracy theories
.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Hollywood Reporter (THR)
WP:THR 📌
Generally reliable 1 2 3 4 5 Stale discussions
2018
There is consensus that The Hollywood Reporter is generally reliable for entertainment-related topics, including its articles and reviews on film, TV and music, as well as its box office figures. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Hope not Hate (Searchlight) No consensus Request for comment 2018

1 2 3 4 5

Stale discussions
2019
Most commenters declined to make a general statement about publications from Hope not Hate. Reliability should be assessed on a case-by-case basis, while taking context into account. Because they are an advocacy group, they are a
attributed
.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
HuffPost (excluding politics) (The Huffington Post)
WP:HUFF 📌

WP:HUFFPO 📌

Generally reliable Request for comment 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 .
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
3 HTTPS links HTTP links
4 HTTPS links HTTP links
5 HTTPS links HTTP links
6 HTTPS links HTTP links
7 HTTPS links HTTP links
8 HTTPS links HTTP links
9 HTTPS links HTTP links
10 HTTPS links HTTP links
11 HTTPS links HTTP links
12 HTTPS links HTTP links
13 HTTPS links HTTP links
14 HTTPS links HTTP links
15 HTTPS links HTTP links
16 HTTPS links HTTP links
HuffPost (politics) (The Huffington Post)
No consensus Request for comment 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
.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
3 HTTPS links HTTP links
4 HTTPS links HTTP links
5 HTTPS links HTTP links
6 HTTPS links HTTP links
7 HTTPS links HTTP links
8 HTTPS links HTTP links
9 HTTPS links HTTP links
10 HTTPS links HTTP links
11 HTTPS links HTTP links
12 HTTPS links HTTP links
13 HTTPS links HTTP links
14 HTTPS links HTTP links
15 HTTPS links HTTP links
16 HTTPS links HTTP links
HuffPost contributors (The Huffington Post)
Generally unreliable Request for comment 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
Human Events No consensus 1 2 3 Stale discussions
2019
Editors consider Human Events
attributed. In May 2019, a former editor-in-chief of Breitbart News became the editor-in-chief of Human Events; articles published after the leadership change are considered generally unreliable. There is no consensus on the reliability of Human Events's older content. See also: The Post Millennial
.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Idolator
Generally reliable 1 2 Stale discussions
2014
There is consensus that Idolator is generally reliable for popular music. Consider whether content from this publication constitutes
due weight
before citing it in an article.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
IGN (Imagine Games Network)
WP:IGN 📌
Generally reliable 12[ac] Stale discussions
2017
There 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
IMDb (Internet Movie Database)
WP:IMDB 📌
Generally unreliable Request for comment 2019

+32[ad]

2020 The content on IMDb is
WP:IMDB-EL
).
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Independent

WP:INDYUK 📌
Generally reliable Request for comment 2021

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Independent Journal Review (IJR) No consensus 1 2 3 Stale discussions
2018
There is no consensus on the reliability of the Independent Journal Review. Posts from "community" members are considered
syndicated stories from Reuters
, and citations of these stories should preferably point to Reuters.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Independent Media Center (Indymedia, IMC)
WP:IMC 📌

 📌
Generally unreliable 1 2 2020 The
self-published source
.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
3 HTTPS links HTTP links
4 HTTPS links HTTP links
5 HTTPS links HTTP links
6 HTTPS links HTTP links
7 HTTPS links HTTP links
8 HTTPS links HTTP links
9 HTTPS links HTTP links
10 HTTPS links HTTP links
11 HTTPS links HTTP links
12 HTTPS links HTTP links
13 HTTPS links HTTP links
14 HTTPS links HTTP links
15 HTTPS links HTTP links
16 HTTPS links HTTP links
17 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Indian Express
Generally reliable Request for comment 2020 2020 The Indian Express is considered generally reliable under the
news organizations guideline
.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
InfoWars (NewsWars)
Blacklisted Deprecated Spam blacklist request 2018 Request for comment 2018 Spam blacklist request 2018

1

2018 Due to persistent abuse, InfoWars is on both the
secondary source
in articles.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
3 HTTPS links HTTP links
4 HTTPS links HTTP links
5 HTTPS links HTTP links
Inquisitr Generally unreliable 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Insider (excluding culture) (Business Insider, Markets Insider, Tech Insider)
WP:BI 📌

 📌
No consensus Request for comment 2020 Request for comment 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
3 HTTPS links HTTP links
Insider
(culture)
Generally reliable Request for comment 2021 2021 There is consensus that Insider is generally reliable for its coverage in its culture section. See also: Insider (excluding culture). 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
Inter Press Service (IPS) Generally reliable 1 2 Stale discussions
2011
The Inter Press Service is a news agency. There is consensus that the Inter Press Service is generally reliable for news. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
3 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Intercept Generally reliable 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 journals
over news sources like The Intercept.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
International Business Times (IBT, IBTimes)
Generally unreliable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2019 There is consensus that the International Business Times is generally unreliable. Editors note that the publication's editorial practices have been criticized by other reliable sources, and point to the inconsistent quality of the site's articles. The site's
syndicated content
, which may not be clearly marked, should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
3 HTTPS links HTTP links
4 HTTPS links HTTP links
5 HTTPS links HTTP links
6 HTTPS links HTTP links
International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN)
 📌
Generally reliable Request for comment 2020 2020 The
reliability
of fact-checking organizations.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Investopedia
Generally unreliable 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
IslamQA.info No consensus 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Jacobin Generally reliable Request for comment 2021

1 2 3 4

2022
due weight
is given to their perspective amongst others'. The reliability of articles authored by Branko Marcetic has been considered questionable.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association) Generally reliable 1 2 Stale discussions
2018
JAMA is a
WP:MEDRS
.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Jewish Chronicle (The JC) Generally reliable Request for comment 2021

1 2

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 attribution
is recommended for its coverage of these topics.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Jewish Virtual Library (JVL) Generally unreliable Request for comment 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 A

2021 The Jewish Virtual Library is a
cites Wikipedia
and 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Jezebel
No consensus 1 2 Stale discussions
2016
There 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Jihad Watch Deprecated Request for comment 2021

1 2 3

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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Joshua Project (Believers in Christ from a Muslim Background: A Global Census, WEC International)
Generally unreliable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Request for comment 2021

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 HTTPS links HTTP links 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Kirkus Reviews
WP:KIRKUS 📌
Generally reliable 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Know Your Meme (KYM)

WP:KYM 📌
Generally unreliable 1 2 3 4 5 6 2022 Know Your Meme entries, including "confirmed" entries, are
user-generated
and generally unreliable. There is no consensus on the reliability of their video series.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Kommersant Generally reliable Request for comment 2021

1 2 3

2021 Kommersant is a liberal business
intext attribution
.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
3 HTTPS links HTTP links
Land Transport Guru Generally unreliable 1 2 3 2024 Due to it being a self-published source, Land Transport Guru is considered an unreliable source
Last.fm
WP:LASTFM 📌
Deprecated Request for comment 2019

1

2019 Last.fm was deprecated in the 2019 RfC. The content on Last.fm is
user-generated
, and is considered generally unreliable.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Lenta.ru (12 March 2014–present) Blacklisted Deprecated Request for comment 2019 Spam blacklist request 2020

1 2

2020 Due to persistent abuse, Lenta.ru is on the
secondary source
in articles.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
LifeSiteNews (Campaign Life Coalition)
Deprecated Request for comment 2019

1 2 3 4 5 6

2019 LifeSiteNews was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the site publishes false or fabricated information. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
LinkedIn (LinkedIn Pulse)
Generally unreliable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2020 LinkedIn is a social network. As a
living persons
.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
LiveJournal Generally unreliable 1 2 3 4 2020 LiveJournal is a
living persons
.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
LiveLeak Blacklisted Generally unreliable Spam blacklist request 2019

1 2 3 4

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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Los Angeles Times (L.A. Times)
Generally reliable 1 2 3 4 5 6 Stale discussions
2016
Most editors consider the Los Angeles Times generally reliable. Refer to
WP:NEWSBLOG
for the newspaper's blog.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Lulu.com (Lulu Press)
WP:LULU 📌
Blacklisted Generally unreliable Spam blacklist request 2008

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

2019 Due to persistent abuse, Lulu.com is on the
subject-matter expert. Occasionally, a reputable publisher uses Lulu.com as a printer
; in this case, cite the original publisher instead of Lulu.com.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Mail & Guardian Generally reliable Request for comment 2021 2021 The Mail & Guardian is a South African newspaper. There is consensus that it is generally reliable. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Mail on Sunday
Deprecated Request for comment 2020

1 2

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.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
3 HTTPS links HTTP links
4 HTTPS links HTTP links
Marquis Who's Who (Who's Who in America) Generally unreliable 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
Mashable (non-sponsored content)
No consensus Request for comment 2021

1 2 3 4 5 6

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
sponsored
content, especially ensuring that the content was written by Mashable staff and not the sponsor themselves.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Mashable (sponsored content) Generally unreliable Request for comment 2021

1 2 3 4 5 6

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
sponsored
content, especially ensuring that the content was written by Mashable staff and not the sponsor themselves.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Mary Sue
Generally reliable 1 2 3

A B

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 HTTPS links HTTP links
MDPI (Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute)
WP:MDPI 📌
No consensus 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
MEAWW (Media Entertainment Arts WorldWide) Generally unreliable 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC)
WP:MBFC 📌

WP:MB/FC 📌
Generally unreliable 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Media Matters for America (MMfA)
No consensus Request for comment 2010 Request for comment 2019

10[af]

Stale discussions
2019
There is consensus that Media Matters is
attributed
.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
MRCTV
, NewsBusters)
Generally unreliable Request for comment 2010 Request for comment 2019 Request for comment 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
.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
3 HTTPS links HTTP links
4 HTTPS links HTTP links
Mediaite No consensus 1 2 3 Stale discussions
2019
There is some consensus that Mediaite is only marginally reliable, and should be avoided where better sources are available. Editors consider the source to inappropriately blur news and opinion, and
due weight
should be considered if no other reliable sources support a given statement.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Medium
WP:MEDIUM 📌
Generally unreliable Request for comment 2022

1 2 3 4

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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Metacritic (GameRankings) Generally reliable 10[ah] Stale discussions
2017
Metacritic 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
Metal-experience.com
Generally unreliable Request for comment 2021 2021 Metal-experience.com was determined to be generally unreliable for factual reporting. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
MetalSucks No consensus 1 2

A

Stale discussions
2018
MetalSucks is considered usable for its reviews and news articles. Avoid its overly satirical content and exercise caution when MetalSucks is the only source making a statement. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Metro (UK)
WP:METRO 📌
Generally unreliable 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI)
WP:MEMRI 📌
No consensus Request for comment 2020

1 2 3

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 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
MintPress News Deprecated Request for comment 2019 2019 MintPress News was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the site publishes false or fabricated information.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
3 HTTPS links HTTP links
4 HTTPS links HTTP links
Le Monde diplomatique Generally reliable 1 2 3 4 Stale discussions
2018
There is consensus that Le Monde diplomatique is generally reliable. Some editors consider Le Monde diplomatique to be a biased and opinionated source. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
Mondoweiss No consensus 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Stale discussions
2019
Mondoweiss is a news website operated by the Center for Economic Research and Social Change (CERSC), an advocacy organization. There is no consensus on the reliability of Mondoweiss. Editors consider the site
attributed
.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Morning Star (UK) No consensus 1 2 3

A B

Stale discussions
2019
The Morning Star is a British tabloid with a low circulation and readership that the
biographies of living persons
policy.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Mother Jones (MoJo)
Generally reliable 1 2 3 4 5 Stale discussions
2019
There is consensus that Mother Jones is generally reliable. Almost all editors consider Mother Jones a
due weight
before citing it in an article.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
MSNBC Generally reliable Request for comment 2020 1 2020 There is consensus that MSNBC is generally reliable. Talk show content should be treated as
opinion pieces. See also: NBC News
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
MyLife (Reunion.com) Blacklisted Generally unreliable Spam blacklist request 2019 Spam blacklist request 2019

1

2019 Due to persistent abuse, MyLife is on the
user-generated content
, and is considered generally unreliable.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Nation Generally reliable 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 persons
policy.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
National Enquirer Deprecated Request for comment 2019

1 2 3 4 5 6

2019 The National Enquirer is a
edit filter
to warn editors against using the publication.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
National Geographic (Nat Geo)
WP:NATGEO 📌
Generally reliable 1 2 3 2020 There is consensus that National Geographic is generally reliable. For coverage by National Geographic of
parity of sources
should be considered.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
National Review (NR)
No consensus 1 2 3 4 5 6 Stale discussions
2018
There is no consensus on the reliability of National Review. Most editors consider National Review a
biographies of living persons
policy.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Natural News (NewsTarget) Blacklisted Generally unreliable Spam blacklist request 2019

1
A B

2019 Due to persistent abuse, Natural News is on the
whitelisted before they can be used. There is a near-unanimous consensus that the site repeatedly publishes false or fabricated information, including a large number of conspiracy theories
.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links

+494

NBC News Generally reliable 1 2 2020 There is consensus that NBC News is generally reliable for news. See also: MSNBC 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Needle Drop

 📌
No consensus Request for comment 2021

1
A B

2021 There is consensus that additional considerations apply when considering whether the use of
due weight
and 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
The New American Generally unreliable 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
New Eastern Outlook Deprecated Request for comment 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
The New Republic Generally reliable Request for comment 2020

1 2 3

2022 There is consensus that The New Republic is generally reliable. Most editors consider The New Republic
attributed
.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
New York (Vulture, The Cut, Grub Street, Daily Intelligencer) Generally reliable 1 2 3 4 Stale discussions
2016
There 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
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
3 HTTPS links HTTP links
4 HTTPS links HTTP links
New York Daily News (Illustrated Daily News) Generally reliable 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
New York Post (NY Post, New York Evening Post, Page Six)
WP:NYPOST 📌

Generally unreliable Request for comment 2020 Request for comment 2024

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Discussion in progress
2024
There 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
The New York Times (NYT)
WP:NYT 📌

Generally reliable Request for comment 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
The New Yorker Generally reliable 1 2 Stale discussions
2011
There is consensus that The New Yorker is generally reliable. Editors note the publication's robust fact-checking process. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
The New Zealand Herald (NZ Herald) Generally reliable Request for comment 2021 2021 There is consensus that The New Zealand Herald is generally reliable. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
NewsBreak
(News Break)
Deprecated Request for comment 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
NewsBlaze Deprecated Request for comment 2021

1

2021 NewsBlaze was unanimously deprecated by
snowball clause
consensus 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
Newslaundry Generally reliable Request for comment 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
News of the World
Deprecated Request for comment 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
Newsmax
Deprecated Request for comment 2020

1 2 3

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 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
Newsweek (pre-2013) Generally reliable Request for comment 2019

1 2 3 4 5

Stale discussions
2019
There 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Newsweek (2013–present)
No consensus Request for comment 2019

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

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 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Next Web
(TNW)
No consensus 1 2 3 4 Stale discussions
2019
There is no consensus on the reliability of The Next Web. Articles written by
sponsored content
.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
NGO Monitor (Non-governmental Organization Monitor) Generally unreliable Request for comment 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
NME (New Musical Express) Generally reliable 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
NNDB (Notable Names Database)
WP:NNDB 📌
Deprecated Request for comment 2019

1 2 3 4

2019 NNDB is a biographical database operated by Soylent Communications, the parent company of
circular sourcing
.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
NPR (National Public Radio) Generally reliable 1 2 3 2020 There is consensus that NPR is generally reliable for news and statements of fact. NPR's
attribution
.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Occupy Democrats (Washington Press) Deprecated Request for comment 2018 2018 In the 2018 RfC, there was clear consensus to deprecate Occupy Democrats as a source à la the
primary source
for attributing opinions, viewpoints, and the like.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
One America News Network (OANN)
WP:OANN 📌
Deprecated Request for comment 2019

1

2019 In the 2019 RfC, there was clear consensus to deprecate One America News Network as a source à la the
primary source
when attributing opinions, viewpoints, and commentary, meaning that it should not be used as a source outside of its own article.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Onion Generally unreliable 1 2 2019 The Onion is a satirical news website, and should not be used as a source for facts. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
OpIndia
Blacklisted Generally unreliable 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
Our Campaigns Generally unreliable Request for comment 2021 2021 Our Campaigns is considered generally unreliable due to its publishing of
user-generated content
.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
PanAm Post Generally unreliable Request for comment 2020 Request for comment 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 reliable
and only believe that its opinion section should be avoided.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Patheos
Generally unreliable Request for comment 2022

1 2 3

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 HTTPS links HTTP links
La Patilla No consensus Request for comment 2023

1

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:BLP
claims.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
self-published
)
Deprecated Request for comment 2020 Request for comment 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 websites
for the full list.
List
People Generally reliable Request for comment 2013

1 2 3 4

Stale discussions
2014
There is consensus that People magazine can be a reliable source in
biographies of living persons
, but the magazine should not be used for contentious claims unless supplemented with a stronger source.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
People Make Games Generally reliable Request for comment 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 Generally reliable 1 2 Stale discussions
2012
There is consensus that the Pew Research Center is generally reliable.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
3 HTTPS links HTTP links
4 HTTPS links HTTP links
5 HTTPS links HTTP links
6 HTTPS links HTTP links
7 HTTPS links HTTP links
8 HTTPS links HTTP links
PinkNews
Generally reliable Request for comment 2020

1 2 3 4 5

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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Playboy Generally reliable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Stale discussions
2015
There is consensus that Playboy is generally reliable. Editors note the publication's reputation for high-quality interviews and fact-checking. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
An Phoblacht Generally unreliable Request for comment 2020

1

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 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Points Guy (news and reviews) (TPG) Blacklisted No consensus Spam blacklist request 2018 Request for comment 2019

A B C

2019 There is no consensus on the reliability of news articles and reviews on The Points Guy. The Points Guy has advertising relationships with credit card and travel companies, and content involving these companies should be avoided as sources. The Points Guy is currently on the
whitelisted before they can be used. See also: The Points Guy (sponsored content)
.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Points Guy (sponsored content) (TPG) Blacklisted Generally unreliable Spam blacklist request 2018 Request for comment 2019

A B C

2019 There is consensus that sponsored content on The Points Guy, including content involving credit cards, should not be used as sources. The Points Guy has advertising relationships with credit card and travel companies, receiving compensation from readers signing up for credit cards via the website's links. The Points Guy is currently on the
whitelisted before they can be used. See also: The Points Guy (news and reviews)
.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Politico Generally reliable Request for comment 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 Stale discussions
2018
Politico is considered generally reliable for American politics. A small number of editors say that Politico is a
biased
source.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
PolitiFact (PunditFact) Generally reliable Request for comment 2016 Request for comment 2019 Stale discussions
2019
PolitiFact is a reliable source for reporting the veracity of statements made by political candidates. PolitiFact is a reliable source for reporting the percentage of false statements made by a political candidate (of the statements checked by PolitiFact), provided that
attribution
is given, as a primary source.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Polygon Generally reliable 1 2 2020 Polygon is considered generally reliable for video games and pop culture related topics. See also: The Verge, Vox, New York 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Post Millennial
Generally unreliable Request for comment 2020

1 2

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 HTTPS links HTTP links
PR Newswire
Generally unreliable 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
Press TV
Deprecated Request for comment 2020 Request for comment 2021

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

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.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
3 HTTPS links HTTP links
4 HTTPS links HTTP links
Pride.com
No consensus Request for comment 2020 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Project Veritas (James O'Keefe, O'Keefe Media Group)
Blacklisted Deprecated Spam blacklist request 2021 Request for comment 2023

1 2 3

2023 Due to persistent abuse, Project Veritas is on the
WP:ABOUTSELF
claims. Citations to O'Keefe's work and claims based on any such citations should be removed.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
ProPublica Generally reliable Request for comment 2019

1

Stale discussions
2019
There 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Quackwatch No consensus Request for comment 2019

+13[ak]

Stale discussions
2019
Articles written by
parity of sources
should be considered.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Quadrant Generally unreliable Request for comment 2019 2019 Most editors consider Quadrant generally unreliable for factual reporting. The publication is a
biased and opinionated source
.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Quartz
Generally reliable 1 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Quillette Generally unreliable Request for comment 2020

1 2 3 4

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:DUE
for an attributed opinion rather than whether it is reliable for a factual claim.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Quora Generally unreliable 1 2 3 4 2019 Quora is a
policy on self-published sources
.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Radio Free Asia (RFA)
Generally reliable Request for comment 2021

1 2 3 4

2022 Radio Free Asia can be generally considered a reliable source. In particularly geopolitically-charged areas,
attribution
of 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Rappler
Generally reliable 1 2 3 Stale discussions
2018
There 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Rate Your Music (RYM, Cinemos, Glitchwave, Sonemic)

WP:RYM 📌
Deprecated Request for comment 2019

1
A

2019 Rate Your Music was deprecated in the 2019 RfC. The content on Rate Your Music is
user-generated
, and is considered generally unreliable.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
3 HTTPS links HTTP links
4 HTTPS links HTTP links
Raw Story
Generally unreliable Request for comment 2021

1 2 3 4 5

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 attribution
should accompany each use of the source.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
RealClearPolitics (RCP, RealClearInvestigations) No consensus 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
Reason Generally reliable 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Reddit

Generally unreliable 1 2 3 4 5 2020 Reddit is a
sources about themselves
applies.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
RedState Generally unreliable 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Red Ventures Generally unreliable Request for comment 2024

1

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") Generally reliable 1 2 3 4 5

A

Stale discussions
2017
The Register is considered generally reliable for technology-related articles. Some editors say that The Register is
biased or opinionated on topics involving Wikipedia
.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Religion News Service (RNS) Generally reliable 1 2 2020 Religion News Service is considered generally reliable. Use RNS with caution to verify contentious claims. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
ResearchGate Generally unreliable 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 access
link to the paper (which may be hosted on ResearchGate).
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Republic TV (Republic World)
Deprecated Request for comment 2021

1 2

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 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
Reuters
Generally reliable 1 2 3 Stale discussions
2018
Reuters is a
Syndicated reports from Reuters that are published in other sources are also considered generally reliable. Press releases
published by Reuters are not automatically reliable.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
RhythmOne (AllMusic, AllMovie, AllGame, All Media Guide, AllRovi)
No consensus 26[al] 2021 RhythmOne (who acquired All Media Guide, formerly AllRovi) operates the websites
notability
.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
3 HTTPS links HTTP links
RIA Novosti
No consensus 1 2 3 4 Stale discussions
2016
RIA 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
Rolling Stone (culture)

Generally reliable Request for comment 2021

1 2 3 4

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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Rolling Stone (politics and society, 2011–present)
Generally unreliable Request for comment 2021

1 2 3 4 5

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
scientific
claims should not be sourced to the publication.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Rolling Stone (Culture Council) Generally unreliable Request for comment 2021 2021 There is unanimous consensus among editors that Culture Council articles (of URL form rollingstone.com/culture-council/*) are
medical or scientific claims
is not allowed.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
Rotten Tomatoes

Generally reliable Request for comment 2023 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

A B C

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 content
along with a lack of oversight.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Royal Central Deprecated Request for comment 2022

1 2

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 HTTPS links HTTP links
RT (Russia Today, ANO TV-Novosti, Ruptly, Redfish, Maffick)
WP:RT.COM 📌

Deprecated Request for comment 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

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.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
3 HTTPS links HTTP links
4 HTTPS links HTTP links
5 HTTPS links HTTP links
6 HTTPS links HTTP links
7 HTTPS links HTTP links
RTÉ (Raidió Teilifís Éireann) Generally reliable Request for comment 2023 2023 RTÉ is an Irish public service broadcaster. There is consensus that RTÉ is generally reliable. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Salon.com
No consensus 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Science-Based Medicine
WP:SBM 📌
Generally reliable Request for comment 2019

1 2 3

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 sources
may be relevant.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
ScienceBlogs No consensus 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

A

Stale discussions
2012
ScienceBlogs 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 sources
may be relevant.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
ScienceDirect topic page Deprecated 1 2 3 2023
verifiability
. Citations should be made to the actual, underlying publications quoted by the topic page.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Scientific American (SA, SciAm) Generally reliable 1 2 2020 Scientific American is considered generally reliable for
WP:MEDPOP
to determine whether the publication's medical coverage should be used.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
SCOTUSblog
Generally reliable Request for comment 2021

1 2

2021 In a 2021 RfC, there was strong consensus that SCOTUSblog is
opinion
and analysis articles.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Screen Rant No consensus Request for comment 2021

1

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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Scribd Generally unreliable 1 2 3 4 2016 Scribd operates a self-publishing platform for documents and audiobooks. It is considered generally unreliable, especially for
WP:COPYVIO
policy. If a particular document hosted on the platform is in itself reliable, editors are advised to cite the source without linking to the Scribd entry.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Scriptural texts (e.g. Bible, Quran)
 📌
Generally unreliable Request for comment 2020

1 2 3 4

2021 Scriptural texts, like the
MOS:PLOTSOURCE
.
Sherdog No consensus Request for comment 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 ESPN
and other generally reliable sources, so use with caution.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Simple Flying

Generally unreliable 1 2 3 2023 Simple Flying is generally unreliable as a blog without a reputation for fact checking or reliability. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links


Sixth Tone (general topics) Generally reliable Request for comment 2020 2020 Sixth Tone is usable for general non-political topics, such as Chinese society and culture. See also: Sixth Tone (politics). 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Sixth Tone (politics) Generally unreliable Request for comment 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Skeptic's Dictionary No consensus 1 2 3 4 2020 The Skeptic's Dictionary is a book by
parity of sources
may be relevant.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Skwawkbox Generally unreliable 1 2 2020 The Skwawkbox is considered generally unreliable because it is
biased or opinionated
.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Sky News Australia No consensus Request for comment 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Sky News (UK) Generally reliable 1 2 3 2022 Sky News (UK) is considered an ordinary
WP:NEWSORG
and 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Snopes
WP:SNOPES 📌
Generally reliable 14[am] 2020 Snopes is certified by the
parity of sources
may be relevant.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
SourceWatch
Generally unreliable 1 2 3 2016 As an
open wiki, SourceWatch is considered generally unreliable. SourceWatch is operated by the Center for Media and Democracy
.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
South China Morning Post (SCMP, Sunday Morning Post)
WP:SCMP 📌
Generally reliable Request for comment 2020

1 2 3

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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)
WP:SPLC 📌
Generally reliable +19[an] 2021 The Southern Poverty Law Center is considered generally reliable on topics related to
biographies of living persons
policy. Some editors have questioned the reliability of the SPLC on non-United States topics. 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Space.com Generally reliable 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
SparkNotes No consensus 1 2 Stale discussions
2018
SparkNotes is a study guide. Editors consider SparkNotes usable for superficial analyses of literature, and recommend supplementing SparkNotes citations with additional sources. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Spectator
No consensus 1 2 2020 The Spectator primarily consists of opinion pieces and these should be judged by
WP:NEWSBLOG
.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
Spiegel Online
, SPON)
Generally reliable 10[ao] Stale discussions
2018
There is consensus that Der Spiegel is generally reliable. Articles written by Claas Relotius are fabrications, and are thus unreliable. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Spirit of Metal Generally unreliable 1 2 2010 Spirit of Metal is considered a
self-published source
and generally unreliable.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Generally unreliable 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Sputnik
Deprecated Request for comment 2020

1 2 3

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.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
3 HTTPS links HTTP links
4 HTTPS links HTTP links
5 HTTPS links HTTP links
6 HTTPS links HTTP links
7 HTTPS links HTTP links
8 HTTPS links HTTP links
9 HTTPS links HTTP links
10 HTTPS links HTTP links
11 HTTPS links HTTP links
12 HTTPS links HTTP links
13 HTTPS links HTTP links
14 HTTPS links HTTP links
15 HTTPS links HTTP links
16 HTTPS links HTTP links
17 HTTPS links HTTP links
18 HTTPS links HTTP links
19 HTTPS links HTTP links
20 HTTPS links HTTP links
Stack Exchange (Stack Overflow, MathOverflow, Ask Ubuntu) Generally unreliable 1 2

A

2018 Stack Exchange is a network of
user-generated content
, and is considered generally unreliable.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
3 HTTPS links HTTP links
4 HTTPS links HTTP links
5 HTTPS links HTTP links
6 HTTPS links HTTP links
StarsUnfolded Generally unreliable 1 2 3 2020 There is consensus that StarsUnfolded is unreliable as it is a
self-published source
.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Statista
Generally unreliable 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Straits Times No consensus Request for comment 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Sun (UK) (The Sun on Sunday, The Irish Sun, The Scottish Sun, The U.S. Sun)
WP:THESUN 📌
Deprecated Request for comment 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.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
3 HTTPS links HTTP links
4 HTTPS links HTTP links
5 HTTPS links HTTP links
6 HTTPS links HTTP links
7 HTTPS links HTTP links
8 HTTPS links HTTP links
Swarajya Blacklisted Generally unreliable 1 2 3 2021 Due to persistent abuse, Swarajya is on the
biased or opinionated. Swarajya was formerly the parent publication of OpIndia, and frequently republishes content from OpIndia under the "Swarajya Staff" byline. See also: OpIndia
.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Sydney Morning Herald Generally reliable Request for comment 2021

1

2022 There is consensus that The Sydney Morning Herald is generally reliable. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Taki's Magazine (Takimag, Taki's Top Drawer) Deprecated Request for comment 2019

1

2019 Taki's Magazine was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that it is an unreliable opinion magazine that should be avoided outside of very limited exceptions (e.g.
WP:ABOUTSELF
).
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
TASS (ITAR-TASS, Telegraph Agency of the Soviet Union, Information Telegraph Agency of Russia)
WP:TASS 📌
Generally unreliable Request for comment 2019 Request for comment 2022

1 2

2022 In a 2022 RfC, editors achieved a strong consensus that TASS is a
biased
source 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
TechCrunch
No consensus 1 2 3 4 Stale discussions
2018
Careful consideration should be given to whether a piece is written by staff or as a part of their blog, as well as whether the piece/writer may have a conflict of interest, and to what extent they rely on public relations material from their subject for their writing. TechCrunch may be useful for satisfying
notability
.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Telesur
Deprecated Request for comment 2019

1 2

2019 Telesur was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the TV channel is a
attributed
.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
TheWrap Generally reliable 1 2 Stale discussions
2017
As an industry trade publication, there is consensus that TheWrap is a good source for entertainment news and media analysis. There is no consensus regarding the reliability of TheWrap's articles on other topics. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
ThinkProgress No consensus Request for comment 2013

1 2

Stale discussions
2013
Discussions of ThinkProgress are dated, with the most recent in 2013. Circumstances may have changed. Some consider ThinkProgress a form of
partisan source
for the purposes of American politics.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Time Generally reliable 1 2 3 4 5 2019 There is consensus that Time is generally reliable. Time's
attribution
.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Times (The Times of London, The London Times, The Sunday Times)
Generally reliable Request for comment 2022

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 A

2022 The Times, including its sister paper The Sunday Times, is considered generally reliable. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
3 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Times of India (TOI)
WP:TOI 📌
No consensus Request for comment 2020

1 2 3 4

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 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
TMZ
WP:TMZ 📌
No consensus 13[aq] Stale discussions
2016
There is no consensus on the reliability of TMZ. Although TMZ is cited by reliable sources, most editors consider TMZ a low-quality source and prefer more reliable sources when available. Because TMZ frequently publishes articles based on rumor and speculation without named sources, it is recommended to explicitly
living person
.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
TorrentFreak (TF) Generally reliable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Stale discussions
2019
Most editors consider TorrentFreak generally reliable on topics involving file sharing. Editors note references to the website in mainstream media. The source may or may not be reliable for other topics. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Townhall No consensus 1 2 Stale discussions
2010
As of 2010, a few editors commented that opinion pieces in Townhall are reliable as a source for the opinion of the author of the individual piece, although they may not be reliable for
WP:DUEWEIGHT
.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
TRT World (TRT, Türkiye Radyo ve Televizyon, Turkish Radio and Television)
WP:TRT 📌
No consensus Request for comment 2019 Stale discussions
2019
Consensus exists that TRT World is reliable for statements regarding the official views of the Turkish government but not reliable for subjects with which the Turkish government could be construed to have a conflict of interest. For other miscellaneous cases, it shall be assumed to be reliable enough. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Truth About Guns (TTAG)
WP:TTAG 📌
Generally unreliable 1 2 3 2019 The Truth About Guns is a
undue weight
.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
TV.com Generally unreliable 1 2 3 4 5 6 2020 TV.com was largely
user-generated
and 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
TV Guide Generally reliable 1 2 Stale discussions
2012
TV Guide is considered generally reliable for television-related topics. Some editors consider TV Guide a
primary source
for air dates.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
TV Tropes
Generally unreliable 1 2

A

2016 TV Tropes is considered generally unreliable because it is an
self-published source
.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Twitter (X)

WP:RSPX 📌
Generally unreliable 45[ar] 2023 Twitter (rebranded to X since July 2023) is a social network. As a
living persons
.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Unz Review
WP:UNZ 📌
Deprecated Request for comment 2021

1

2021 The Unz Review was deprecated by
copyright violations
.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
Urban Dictionary Generally unreliable 1 2 3 2020 Urban Dictionary is considered generally unreliable, because it consists solely of
user-generated content
.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
U.S. News & World Report Generally reliable 1 2 3 2020 There is consensus that U.S. News & World Report is generally reliable. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Us Weekly No consensus 1 2 3 4 5 Stale discussions
2018
There is no consensus on the reliability of Us Weekly. It is often considered less reliable than People magazine. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
USA Today Generally reliable 1 2 3 4 5

A B

2022 There is consensus that USA Today is generally reliable. Editors note the publication's robust editorial process and its centrist alignment. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
USA Today contributors Generally unreliable 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Vanity Fair
Generally reliable 1 2 3 4 2021 Vanity Fair is considered generally reliable, including for
biased or opinionated
.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Variety
Generally reliable 1 2 3 4 5 Stale discussions
2016
As an entertainment trade magazine, Variety is considered a reliable source in its field. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
VDARE Deprecated Request for comment 2018

1

2019 VDARE was deprecated in the 2018 RfC. Editors agree that it is generally unusable as a source, although there may be rare exceptions such as in identifying its writers in an
about-self fashion
. Such limited instances will only be under careful and guided ("filtered") discretion.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Venezuelanalysis Generally unreliable Request for comment 2019

1
A B

2019 There is consensus that Venezuelanalysis is generally unreliable. Some editors consider Venezuelanalysis a
attributed
.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
VentureBeat Generally reliable 1 2
A B
Stale discussions
2015
VentureBeat is considered generally reliable for articles relating to businesses, technology and video games. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Verge Generally reliable Request for comment 2018

1

Stale discussions
2019
There is broad consensus that The Verge is a
reliable source for use in articles relating to technology, science, and automobiles. Some editors question the quality of The Verge's instructional content on computer hardware. See also: Vox, Polygon, New York
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Veterans Today Blacklisted Deprecated Request for comment 2019 Spam blacklist request 2019

1 2

2019 Due to persistent abuse, Veterans Today is on the
secondary source
in articles.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
VGChartz Generally unreliable Request for comment 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Vice Media (Garage, Refinery29, Vice, Vice News, Motherboard)
WP:VICE 📌
No consensus 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2023 There is no consensus on the reliability of Vice Media publications. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
3 HTTPS links HTTP links
Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation (VOC) Generally unreliable 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Vogue Generally reliable 1 2 3 4 Stale discussions
2018
Vogue is considered generally reliable. Potentially contentious statements made by Vogue interview subjects can be
attributed
to the individual.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Voice of America (VOA, VoA)
WP:RSPVOA 📌
Generally reliable Request for comment 2021

1 2

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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Voltaire Network Deprecated Request for comment 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Vox (Recode)
WP:RSPVOX 📌
Generally reliable 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
partisan source in the field of politics. See also: Polygon, The Verge, New York
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Wall Street Journal (WSJ)
WP:WSJ 📌
Generally reliable 1 2 3 4 5 2019 Most editors consider The Wall Street Journal generally reliable for news. Use
WP:RSOPINION
for opinion pieces.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Washington Examiner No consensus 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Washington Free Beacon
 📌
Generally unreliable 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Washington Post (The Post, WaPo, TWP)
WP:WAPO 📌
Generally reliable 17[at] 2021 Most editors consider The Washington Post generally reliable. Some editors note that
WP:NEWSBLOG
should be used to evaluate blog posts on The Washington Post's website.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Washington Times No consensus Request for comment 2021

1 2 3 4 5

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 movement
and related topics.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Weather2Travel.com Generally unreliable 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Weekly Standard Generally reliable 1 2 3 Stale discussions
2014
The Weekly Standard is considered generally reliable, but much of their published content is
partisan source
.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Western Journal (Western Journalism) Generally unreliable Request for comment 2019

1

2019 In the 2019 RfC, there was consensus that The Western Journal is generally unreliable, but no consensus on whether The Western Journal should be deprecated. The publication's
syndicated content
should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
We Got This Covered
 📌
Generally unreliable 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
WhatCulture
Generally unreliable 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Who's Who (UK) Generally unreliable Request for comment 2022

1 2 3 4

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 HTTPS links HTTP links
WhoSampled

Generally unreliable 1 2 2016 WhoSampled is almost entirely composed of
self-published source
.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Wikidata
WP:RSPWD 📌
Generally unreliable Request for comment 2013 Request for comment 2018

1 2

2018 Wikidata is largely user-generated, and articles should not directly cite Wikidata as a source (just as it would be inappropriate to cite other Wikipedias' articles as sources). See also: Wikidata transcluded statements. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Wikidata transcluded statements
No consensus Request for comment 2013 Request for comment 2018

1 2

Stale discussions
2018
Uniquely among WMF sites, Wikidata's statements can be directly transcluded into articles; this is usually done to provide external links or infobox data. For example, more than two million external links from Wikidata are shown through the {{Authority control}} template. There has been controversy over the use of Wikidata in the English Wikipedia due to its infancy, its vandalism issues and its sourcing. While there is no consensus on whether information from Wikidata should be used at all, there is general agreement that any Wikidata statements transcluded need to be just as – or more – reliable compared to Wikipedia content. As such, Module:WikidataIB and some related modules and templates filter unsourced Wikidata statements by default; however, other modules and templates, such as Module:Wikidata, do not. See also: Wikidata (direct citations).
WikiLeaks
Generally unreliable Request for comment 2021

14[au]

2021 WikiLeaks is a repository of
WP:COPYLINK
.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Wikinews
Generally unreliable 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Wikipedia (including The Signpost)
WP:RSPWP 📌
Generally unreliable +21[av] 2021
WP:COPYWITHIN
for instructions.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Wire (India) Generally reliable Request for comment 2023

1 2 3

2023 The Wire is considered generally reliable under the
news organizations guideline
.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
3 HTTPS links HTTP links
Wired (Wired UK) Generally reliable +10[aw] Stale discussions
2018
Wired magazine is considered generally reliable for science and technology. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
WordPress.com Generally unreliable 15[ax] 2021 WordPress.com is a
living persons
; this includes interviews, as even those cannot be authenticated.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
World Christian Database, World Christian Encyclopedia, and World Religion Database (WCD, WCE, WRD)
WP:WCD 📌

WP:WCE 📌

WP:WRD 📌
No consensus Request for comment 2022

Request for comment 2024

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 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
3 HTTPS links HTTP links
WorldNetDaily (WND)
WP:WND 📌
Deprecated Request for comment 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 content
should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher, and the citation should preferably point to the original publisher.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
Worldometer (Worldometers) Generally unreliable 1 2 3 2020 Worldometer is a
WikiProject COVID-19 as a source for statistics on the COVID-19 pandemic
and is considered generally unreliable for other topics.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
World Socialist Web Site (WSWS)
WP:WSWS 📌
No consensus 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
XBIZ No consensus Request for comment 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Xinhua News Agency (New China News Agency)
WP:XINHUA 📌
No consensus Request for comment 2020

1 2 3

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 attribution
if you must use Xinhua.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
Yahoo! News Generally reliable 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
YouTube
WP:RSPYT 📌
Generally unreliable Request for comment 2020

+21[az]

2020 Most videos on YouTube are anonymous,
WP:VIDEOLINK
.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
ZDNet
(pre-October 2020)
Generally reliable Request for comment 2024

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

2024 ZDNet is considered generally reliable for technology-related articles prior to its acquisition by Red Ventures in October 2020. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
ZDNet
(October 2020-present)
Generally unreliable Request for comment 2024

1

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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Zero Hedge (ZeroHedge, ZH)
Deprecated Request for comment 2020

1 2 3

2020 Zero Hedge was deprecated in the 2020 RfC due to its propagation of
biased or opinionated
.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
ZoomInfo Blacklisted Generally unreliable Spam blacklist request 2020

1 2

2020 Due to persistent abuse, ZoomInfo is currently on the
whitelisted
before they can be used.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links

Categories

Religious scriptures

See

WP:RSPSCRIPTURE
.

Self-published peerage websites

The following

self-published peerage
websites 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.

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

Topic-specific pages

Templates and categories

Notes

  1. ^ This is the case for some of the most prestigious academic journals in the world, like Nature, The Lancet and Science.
  2. ^ 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.
  3. ^ See also these discussions of Advameg: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 A
  4. ^ See these discussions of BBC: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
  5. ^ 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
  6. ^ See also these discussions of Breitbart News: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 A
  7. ^ See also these discussions of BuzzFeed News: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
  8. ^ 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
  9. ^ See these discussions of CNET: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
  10. ^ See these discussions of CNN: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
  11. ^ See also these discussions of CounterPunch: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
  12. ^ See these discussions of The Daily Dot: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 A
  13. ^ 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
  14. ^ 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
  15. ^ See these discussions of Dotdash: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
  16. ^ See these discussions of Encyclopædia Britannica: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
  17. ^ 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
  18. ^
    WP:NEWSORG
    .
  19. ^ See also these discussions of Fox News (news excluding politics and science): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
  20. ^ 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
  21. ^ See these discussions of GlobalSecurity.org: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
  22. ^ See these discussions of The Guardian: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
  23. ^ See these discussions of The Guardian blogs: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
  24. ^ See these discussions of Haaretz: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
  25. ^ See these discussions of The Hill: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
  26. ^ See these discussions of HuffPost (excluding politics): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
  27. ^ See these discussions of HuffPost (politics): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
  28. ^ See these discussions of HuffPost contributors: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
  29. ^ See these discussions of IGN: 1 2 3 4 5 6 A B C D E F
  30. ^ 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
  31. ^ See also these discussions of Business Insider: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
  32. ^ See also these discussions of Media Matters for America: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
  33. ^ See also these discussions of the Media Research Center: 1 2 3 4 5 6
  34. ^ See these discussions of Metacritic: 1 2 A B C D E F G H
  35. ^ 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
  36. ^ See also these discussions of peerage websites (self-published): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
  37. ^ See also these discussions of Quackwatch: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 A B
  38. ^ 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
  39. ^ See these discussions of Snopes: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
  40. ^ 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
  41. ^ See these discussions of Der Spiegel: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
  42. ^ See also these discussions of The Sun (UK): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
  43. ^ See these discussions of TMZ: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
  44. ^ 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
  45. ^ See also these discussions of VGChartz: A B C D E F G H I J
  46. ^ See these discussions of The Washington Post: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
  47. ^ See these discussions of WikiLeaks: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
  48. ^ 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
  49. ^ See these discussions of Wired: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A
  50. ^ See these discussions of WordPress.com: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
  51. ^ See also these discussions of WorldNetDaily: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
  52. ^ 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

  1. ^ "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.
  2. ^ Sato, Mia (July 6, 2023). "G/O Media's AI 'innovation' is off to a rocky start". The Verge. Retrieved February 27, 2024.
  3. ^ "Ballotpedia: About". Ballotpedia. Archived from the original on November 7, 2018. Retrieved October 23, 2018.
  4. ^ 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.
  5. ^ 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.
  6. ^ 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.
  7. ^ 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.
  8. ^ Waclawiak, Karolina (May 5, 2023). "A Final Editor's Note". BuzzFeed News. Retrieved June 21, 2023.
  9. ^ 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.
  10. ^ Sato, Mia (August 9, 2023). "CNET is deleting old articles to try to improve its Google Search ranking". The Verge. Retrieved August 10, 2023.
  11. ^ "Our Portfolio". Digital Currency Group. Archived from the original on August 23, 2018. Retrieved November 21, 2018.
  12. ^ Lord Hague urges Culture Secretary to ‘intervene’ on Telegraph sale
  13. ^ "Fact Check: Is Mohammed the Most Popular Name for Newborn Boys in the Netherlands?". Snopes.com. Retrieved April 29, 2018.
  14. ^ "Carson Didn't Find HUD Errors". FactCheck.org. April 19, 2017. Retrieved April 29, 2018.
  15. ^ Dreyfuss, Emily (May 3, 2017). "RIP About.com". Wired. Archived from the original on August 25, 2018. Retrieved December 29, 2018.
  16. ^ 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.
  17. ^ "Contribute – Find A Grave". www.findagrave.com. Archived from the original on July 31, 2018. Retrieved July 30, 2018.
  18. ^ 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.
  19. ^ 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.
  20. ^ 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).]
  21. ^ Plunkett, Luke (December 5, 2019). "RIP Gamerankings.com". Kotaku. G/O Media. Retrieved December 6, 2019.
  22. ^ "GameRankings Shutting down". Archived from the original on December 4, 2019.
  23. Gamasutra
    . Retrieved December 5, 2019.
  24. ^ 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.
  25. ^ 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.
  26. ^ 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.
  27. Gamasutra
    . Retrieved October 3, 2014.
  28. ^ "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.
  29. ^ "Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 134". Wikipedia. October 2012. Retrieved April 22, 2020.
  30. ^ a b "Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 288". Wikipedia. March 2020. Retrieved April 22, 2020.
  31. ^ "Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 46". Wikipedia. October 2009.
  32. ^ "Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 366". Wikipedia. January 2022.

External links