User:Nicolas1981/Wikipedia Reference Search
WRS is a search engine that returns only results from websites that Wikipedia policies mention as "reliable", such as nytimes.com or ieee.org. So next time you add a fact to Wikipedia, you can easily find a source to confirm this fact, and write it as a reference.
WRS can make a reference search very efficient, but it is not a substitute for critical analysis. We are working hard to make sure WRS shows only reliable pages, but search results always contain some irrelevant or unreliable pages. Please identify within the results which page is the best reference for your fact. Always ask yourself whether the web page you found is indeed a valid reference before inserting it into Wikipedia.
"Reliable" is not really biased here, some websites are clearly accepted as reliable sources, the list is based on Wikipedia consensus. It is impossible to write the list of all reliable websites, but a hundred of reliable websites would be enough for general topics. The list of reliable websites can be refined by Wikipedians over time. A difficult task is to distinguish between various sections of a website (for instance between news and forum).
To modify the list, click on the [Volunteer to contribute] link on the search page or use the dedicated section. This list must grow to cover more topics, your help is welcome!
scholar.google.com/* news.google.com/* *.rfi.fr/* *.lemonde.fr/* *.gov/ *.edu/ *.wsj.com/* *.cleveland.com/* *.oregonlive.com/* *.sfgate.com/* *.philly.com/* www.consumerreports.org/* *.wrestleview.com/* *.f4wonline.com/* slam.canoe.ca/* *.tnawrestling.com/* *.wwe.com/* *.fia.com/* *.grandprix.com/* *.itv-f1.com/* *.autosport.com/* *.formula1.com/* *.aviation-safety.net/* seattletimes.nwsource.com/* *.nuclearweaponarchive.org/* *.amtrak.com/* *.defenselink.mil/* *.nationalreview.com/* transinfo.com.au/* *.epolitix.com/* *.amnesty.org/* *.villagevoice.com/* army.mod.uk/* info.gov.hk/* *.fox.com/* *.fcc.gov/* *.parliament.uk/* news.independent.co.uk/* *.ab.ca/* *.canadiana.org/* *.archives.gov/* world.guns.ru/* espn.go.com/* *.famousamericans.net/* tate.org.uk/* *.fbi.gov/* internationalhero.co.uk/* books.google.com/* *.gutenberg.net/* *.nbc.com/* *.businessweek.com/* news.com.com/* *.hinduonnet.com/* *.fws.gov/* *.economist.com/* *.fda.gov/* *.space.com/* *.redlist.org/* abcnews.go.com/* *.cricinfo.com/* *.vahighways.com/* psephos.adam-carr.net/* *.government.bg/* *.newyorker.com/* *.usc.edu/* *.virginia.edu/* *.census.gov/* english-nature.org.uk/* *.tufts.edu/* news.yahoo.com/* *.qc.ca/* *.usda.gov/* *.catholic-hierarchy.org/* *.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/* british-history.ac.uk/* *.fallingrain.com/* *.museum.tv/* *.newscientist.com/* *.cbs.com/* *.iana.org/* *.hindu.com/* *.latimes.com/* *.vt.us/* npg.org.uk/* *.gov.au/* *.footballdatabase.com/* *.obsessedwithwrestling.com/* *.astronautix.com/* *.u-strasbg.fr/* *.epa.gov/* *.foxnews.com/* europa.eu.int/* *.vatican.va/* *.racing-reference.info/* *.army.mil/* *.gg.ca/* *.usdoj.gov/* *.lds.org/* *.fordham.edu/* *.maritimequest.com/* *.politicalgraveyard.com/* *.nature.com/* *.airliners.net/* *.elections.ca/* *.cricketarchive.com/* *.crimelibrary.com/* *.insee.fr/* nationaltrust.org.uk/* *.marvel.com/* *.findlaw.com/* *.ccel.org/* *.cbsnews.com/* *.emedicine.com/* karachicity.gov.pk/* *.baseballhalloffame.org/* *.databasefootball.com/* *.whitehouse.gov/* *.mlb.com/* *.fed.us/* *.nj.us/* *.w3.org/* *.apple.com/* *.baseball-almanac.com/* *.unesco.org/* *.livius.org/* *.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/* *.channel4.com/* *.columbia.edu/* *.cdc.gov/* opsi.gov.uk/* *.pokemon.com/* schoolnet.co.uk/* *.americantheatrewing.org/* *.boston.com/* *.nndb.com/* *.nps.gov/* *.cbc.ca/* *.yale.edu/* *.chabad.org/* *.nfl.com/* *.stationreporter.net/* *.nobelprize.org/* smh.com.au/* *.ilo.org/* *.house.gov/* *.ibiblio.org/* *.legendsofhockey.net/* *.uefa.com/* *.britannica.com/* *.bartleby.com/* *.gateworld.net/* *.state.gov/* *.klov.com/* *.hbw.com/* *.mit.edu/* *.embl-heidelberg.de/* *.utexas.edu/* *.msn.com/* *.un.org/* *.usatoday.com/* *.atptennis.com/* telegraph.co.uk/* *.uchicago.edu/* *.jewishencyclopedia.com/* *.marxists.org/* *.boxrec.com/* *.wired.com/* *.basketball-reference.com/* *.forbes.com/* *.harvard.edu/* livedepartureboards.co.uk/* gov.bc.ca/* *.euskomedia.org/* *.wolfram.com/* *.unt.edu/* *.emporis.com/* *.theyworkforyou.com/* *.ibm.com/* *.sun.com/* *.microsoft.com/* *.fas.org/* timesonline.co.uk/* *.animenewsnetwork.com/* *.time.com/* *.stanford.edu/* *.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com/* *.hazegray.org/* *.baseballlibrary.com/* *.nba.com/* espn.go.com/* *.rsssf.com/* *.gutenberg.org/* *.npr.org/* *.findarticles.com/* abc.net.au/* *.congress.gov/* *.nih.gov/* *.cbc.ca/* *.globalsecurity.org/* *.cnn.com/* *.ethnologue.com/* *.nps.gov/* nces.ed.gov/* *.hockeydb.com/* *.washingtonpost.com/* nscb.gov.ph/* *.navy.mil/* *.biographi.ca/* *.allmusic.com/* *.pbs.org/* guardian.co.uk/* *.newadvent.org/* *.baseball-reference.com/* parl.gc.ca/* bbc.co.uk/* *.findagrave.com/* *.iht.com/* *.nasa.gov/* *.nytimes.com/* *.nationalgeographic.com/* *.britannica.com/* *.nsf.gov/* *.nih.gov/* *.nooa.gov/* *.faqs.org/* *.ietf.org/* *.ieee.org/*
If you want another website to be added, append it here. Don't hesitate to add many websites, it's cheap!
- X -- Consumer Reports has a known bias within its reporting regarding American versus foreign vehicles (read up on it), and did not even test Toyota-made vehicles it recommended. I cite the following Nicolas1981 (talk) 23:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)Google result, which includes a link to CR's 2007 statement: CR used to automatically wave through Toyota vehicles as recommended without testing. -- Guroadrunner (talk) 07:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- Done Included as an experiment, I let both of you discuss the topic and reach a consensus (I am neutral) Nicolas1981 (talk) 07:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- Guroadrunner: I read CR's statement as something quite different: not that they didn't *test* Toyota vehicles, but rather that, because Toyota vehicles have historically been so reliable, they were assuming that new and redesigned vehicles would also be. When that turned out (after consumers had owned and driven the new models for some time, then CR changed their approach. (Also, when you're trying to prove a point, citing the best two or three sources is much, much better than providing a google search.) And if our criterion for sources is *perfection*, then I don't know of any source that qualifies. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- philly.com (Philadelphia Inquirer)
- sfgate.com (San Francisco Chronicle)
- oregonlive.com (Portland Oregonian newspaper)
- cleveland.com (Cleveland Plain Dealer)
- wsj.com (Wall Street Journal). Most content is available only to subscribers, but they do have some free content
I also don't understand why you don't just include the entire .gov domain, rather than listing a bunch of separate parts of it. Is hhs.gov less reliable than ftc.gov, for example? Or a state government website less reliable than a federal one? Similarly, I don't understand why you have chosen to list some universities (USC, U. of Virginia, Tufts, etc.) and not others (JHU, UCB, UCSF, etc.) - why not just list the entire .edu domain? Universities often host student pages - see, for example, http://www-scf.usc.edu/ , so obviously editors need to make some distinctions among the pages of the .edu sites you already list - the same distinction that could be made for all edu pages. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- Done I added *.edu and *.gov to the list. but it does not seem to work... maybe it needs websites names and not just a TLD. The initial list comes from statistics on which websites are most linked from Wikipedia. Nicolas1981 (talk) 08:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I would like 3 checkboxes to blanket-add anything returned by Google Scholar, Google Books, and Google News. Likewise, if there are other broad categories that are easy to implement and turn on/off with a check-box, do so. Broad categories should be used if by far the majority of sites/books/whatever in the category are reliable, with a user warning that not all results are in fact reliable. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- X -- I disagree with Google News as a reliable starting point for sourcing, and I can speak from personal experience: I work in the media and for my local area Google News includes results from a non-reliable blog as a news source, possibly more. I also understand Google News lists material from Associated Content, which is a user-created regurgitation of news with little to no firsthand reporting. Recommend not going with this advice on Google News. -- Guroadrunner (talk) 07:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- Done Added Scholar Books News as an experiment, I let both of you discuss the topic and reach a consensus (I am neutral). Nicolas1981 (talk) 08:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- Davidwr, "broad categories" are a good idea, and technically feasible. Can you handle the hard work of forming those categories? Thank you! Nicolas1981 (talk) 08:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- The "broad categories" should be made at the request of the community. As each is its own checkbox, and users are free to check them or not, this can be open-ended. In the long run, if user-logins are ever enabled, user-definable categories and "preset checkbox settings" could be added as well. I may want Google Scholar and News plus my 50 favorite web sites, another user may want his favorite 25 web sites but nothing else beyond the canned list of reliable sources that everyone gets. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- Apart from mclaren.com and brawngp.com, none of the others as of yet satisfy WP:RS. D.M.N. (talk) 18:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Why are we using them as sources inarticles then? Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 19:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)