Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources

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

This is a 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.

Click here to check the list of sources.

Context matters tremendously, and some sources may or may not be suitable for certain uses depending on the situation. When in doubt, defer to the linked discussions for more detailed information on a particular source and its use. 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.

Reliability is an inquiry that takes place pursuant to the verifiability policy and the reliable sources guideline. Note that verifiability is only one of Wikipedia's core content policies, which also include neutral point of view and no original research. These policies work together to determine whether information from reliable sources should be included or excluded.

How to use this list

Refer to the legend for definitions of the icons in the list, but note that the discussion summaries provide more specific guidance on sources than the icons in the "Status" column. When in doubt, defer to the linked discussions, which provide in-depth arguments on when it is appropriate to use a source. The list is not an independent document; it is derived from the conclusions of the referenced discussions and formal requests for comment (RfCs). This list indexes discussions that reflect community consensus, and is intended as a useful summary.

Context matters tremendously when determining the reliability of sources, and their appropriate use on Wikipedia. Sources which are generally unreliable may still be useful in some situations. For example, even extremely low-quality sources, such as social media, may sometimes be used as self-published sources for routine information about the subject themselves. Conversely, some otherwise high-quality sources may not be reliable for highly technical subjects that fall well outside their normal areas of expertise, and even very high-quality sources may occasionally make errors, or retract pieces they have published in their entirety. Even considering content published by a single source, some may represent high-quality professional journalism, while other content may be merely opinion pieces, which mainly represent the personal views of the author, and depend on the author's personal reliability as a source. Be especially careful with sponsored content, because while it is usually unreliable as a source, it is designed to appear otherwise.

Consider also the weight of the claims you are supporting, which should be evaluated alongside the reliability of the sources cited. Mundane, uncontroversial details have the lowest burden of proof, while information related to biomedicine and living persons have the highest.

What if my source isn't here?

Don't panic. If your source isn't listed here, the only thing it really means is that it hasn't been the subject of repeated community discussion. That may be because the source you want to use is a stellar source, and we simply never needed to talk about it because it was so obvious. It could mean that the source covers a niche topic, or that it simply fell through the cracks. If you're concerned about any source in particular, you should start a discussion about it at the reliable sources noticeboard (RSN). That is, after all, how the entries on this list got here to begin with.

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

How to improve this list

Consensus can change. If you believe that circumstances have evolved since the most recent discussion, new evidence has emerged that was not available at the time, or there is a new line of argument not previously covered, consider starting a discussion or a request for comment (RfC) at the 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 disruptive and a type of forum shopping.

If you feel that this list inadequately summarizes the content of the linked discussions, please help to improve it, or start a discussion on the talk page, especially 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 that mention the source's reliability, or an uninterrupted request for comment on the source's reliability that took place on the reliable sources noticeboard. For a discussion to be considered significant, most editors expect no fewer than two participants for RSN discussions where the source's name is in the section heading, and no fewer than three participants for all other discussions.

Instructions

Main page: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Instructions

Any editor may improve this list. Please refer to the instructions for details, and ask for help on the talk page if you get stuck.

Sources

Note: If you add/remove a source in the "generally unreliable", "deprecated" or "blacklisted" categories, please update WP:CITEWATCH/SETUP § WP:RSP, or leave a note at WT:CITEWATCH if you need help.

Source	Status (legend)	Discussions			Uses
		List	Last	Summary
112 Ukraine		2019  2020 1 A	2020	Due to persistent abuse, 112 Ukraine is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. 112 Ukraine was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed overwhelming consensus that the TV channel is generally unreliable and sometimes broadcasts conspiracy theories and Russian propaganda, owing to it being bought out in December 2018 by Ukrainian parliament member Taras Kozak, who represents the Opposition Bloc political party. The use of 112 Ukraine as a reference should be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. 112 Ukraine should not be used for determining notability, or used as a secondary source in articles.	1   2
Advameg (City-Data)		2019  2019  2019 +14	2019	Advameg operates content farms, including City-Data, that use scraped or improperly licensed content. These sites frequently republish content from Gale's encyclopedias; many editors can obtain access to Gale through The Wikipedia Library free of charge. Advameg's sites are on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. WP:COPYLINK prohibits linking to copyright violations.	1   2   +43
Al Jazeera (Al Jazeera English, Aljazeera.com)		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9	2019	Al Jazeera is considered a generally reliable news organization. Editors perceive Al Jazeera English (and Aljazeera.com) to be more reliable than Al Jazeera's Arabic-language news reporting. Some editors say that Al Jazeera, particularly its Arabic-language media, is a partisan source with respect to the Arab–Israeli conflict. Al Jazeera's news blogs should be handled with the corresponding policy.	1   2
AlterNet		1 2 3 4 5	2019	There is consensus that AlterNet is generally unreliable. Editors consider AlterNet a partisan source, and its statements should be attributed. AlterNet's syndicated content should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher, and the citation should preferably point to the original publisher.	1
Amazon		1 2 3 4 5	2017	User reviews on Amazon are anonymous, self-published, and unverifiable, and should not be used at all. Amazon is a reliable source for basic information about a work (such as release date, ISBN, etc.), although it is unnecessary to cite Amazon when the work itself may serve as a source for that information (e.g., authors' names and ISBNs). Future release dates may be unreliable.	1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16
The American Conservative (TAC)		2019 1	2019	There is consensus that The American Conservative is a usable source for attributed opinions. As TAC is published by the American Ideas Institute, an advocacy organization, TAC is considered biased or opinionated.	1
Anadolu Agency (general topics) (AA)		2019	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. It is not generally reliable for topics that are controversial or related to international politics. See also: Anadolu Agency (controversial topics, international politics).	1   2
Anadolu Agency (controversial topics, international politics) (AA)		2019	2019	In the 2019 RfC, editors generally agreed that Anadolu Agency is generally unreliable for topics that are controversial or related to international politics. See also: Anadolu Agency (general topics).	1   2
Ancestry.com		1 2 3 4	2015	Ancestry.com is a genealogy site that hosts a database of primary source documents including marriage and census records. Some of these sources may be usable under WP:BLPPRIMARY, but secondary sources, where available, are usually preferred. Ancestry.com also hosts user-generated content, which is unreliable.	1
Answers.com (WikiAnswers)		1 2 3 4	2010	Answers.com (previously known as WikiAnswers) is a Q&A site that incorporates user-generated content. In the past, Answers.com republished excerpts and summaries of tertiary sources, including D&B Hoovers, Gale, and HighBeam Research. Citations of republished content on Answers.com should point to the original source, with a note that the source was accessed "via Answers.com". Answers.com also previously served as a Wikipedia mirror; using republished Wikipedia content is considered circular sourcing.	1
Ars Technica		1 2	2012	Ars Technica is considered generally reliable for science- and technology-related articles.	1   2
arXiv		1 2 3 4 A B	2015	arXiv is a preprint (and sometimes postprint) repository containing papers that have undergone moderation, but not necessarily peer review. There is consensus that arXiv is a self-published source, and is generally unreliable with the exception of papers authored by established subject-matter experts. Verify whether a paper on arXiv is also published in a peer-reviewed academic journal; in these cases, cite the more reliable journal and provide an open access link to the paper (which may be hosted on arXiv).	1
Associated Press (AP)		1 2 3 4 5 6	2018	The Associated Press is a news agency. There is consensus that the Associated Press is generally reliable. Syndicated reports from the Associated Press that are published in other sources are also considered generally reliable.	1   2
The Atlantic (The Atlantic Monthly)		1 2 3	2019	The Atlantic is considered generally reliable.	1
The A.V. Club		1 2 3 A	2014	The A.V. Club is considered generally reliable for film, music and TV reviews.	1
Baidu Baike		1 2 3 4	2018	Baidu Baike is considered generally unreliable because it is similar to an open wiki, which is a type of self-published source. Although edits are reviewed by Baidu administrators before they are published, most editors believe the editorial standards of Baidu Baike to be very low, and do not see any evidence of fact-checking. The Baidu 10 Mythical Creatures kuso originated from Baidu Baike.	1   2
Ballotpedia		1 2 3	2016	There is no consensus on the reliability of Ballotpedia. The site has an editorial team and accepts error corrections, but some editors do not express strong confidence in the site's editorial process. Discussions indicate that Ballotpedia used to be an open wiki, but stopped accepting user-generated content at some point. Currently, the site claims: "Ballotpedia's articles are 100 percent written by our professional staff of more than 50 writers and researchers."	1
BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation)		15	2019	BBC is considered generally reliable. This includes BBC News, BBC documentaries, and the BBC History site (on BBC Online). However, this excludes BBC projects that incorporate user-generated content (such as h2g2 and the BBC Domesday Project) and BBC publications with reduced editorial oversight (such as Collective). Statements of opinion should conform to the corresponding guideline.	1   2
Bellingcat		2019 1 2 3 4	2019	There is consensus that Bellingcat is generally reliable for news and should preferably be used with attribution. Some editors consider Bellingcat a biased source, as it receives funding from the National Endowment for Democracy.	1
Bild		1 2	2014	Bild is a tabloid that has been unfavourably compared to The Sun. A few editors consider the source usable in some cases.	1
Biography.com		1 2 3 4	2018	There is no consensus on the reliability of Biography.com. Some editors consider the source reliable because of its backing from A&E Networks and references to the website in news media. Others point to discrepancies between information on Biography.com and on more established sources, and an unclear fact-checking process.	1
Blaze Media (BlazeTV, Conservative Review, CRTV, TheBlaze)		1 2 3	2018	Blaze Media (including TheBlaze) is considered generally unreliable for facts. In some cases, it may be usable for attributed opinions. In 2018, TheBlaze merged with Conservative Review (CRTV) to form Blaze Media.	1   2
Blogger (blogspot.com)		20	2019	Blogger is a blog hosting service that owns the blogspot.com domain. As a self-published source, it is considered generally unreliable and should be avoided unless the author is a subject-matter expert or the blog is used for uncontroversial self-descriptions. Blogger blogs published by a media organization should be evaluated by the reliability of the organization. Newspaper blogs hosted using Blogger should be handled with WP:NEWSBLOG. Blogger should never be used for third-party claims related to living persons; this includes interviews, as even those cannot be authenticated.	1
Bloomberg (Bloomberg News, Bloomberg Businessweek)		1 2 3 4	2019	Bloomberg publications, including Bloomberg News and Bloomberg Businessweek, are considered generally reliable for news and business topics. See also: Bloomberg profiles.	1
Bloomberg profiles		1 2	2018	Bloomberg company and executive profiles are generally considered to be based on company press releases and should only be used as a source for uncontroversial information. There is consensus that these profiles should not be used to establish notability. Some editors consider these profiles to be akin to self-published sources. See also: Bloomberg.	1
Boing Boing		1 2 3	2019	There is no consensus on the reliability of Boing Boing. Although Boing Boing is a group blog, some of its articles are written by subject-matter experts such as Cory Doctorow, who is considered generally reliable for copyright law.	1
Breitbart News		2018  2018 +14	2019	Due to persistent abuse, Breitbart News is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. The site has published a number of falsehoods, conspiracy theories, and intentionally misleading stories. The 2018 RfC showed a very clear consensus that Breitbart News should be deprecated in the same way as the Daily Mail. This does not mean Breitbart News can no longer be used, but it should not be used, ever, as a reference for facts, due to its unreliability. It can still be used as a primary source when attributing opinions, viewpoints, and commentary.	1
Business Insider (Insider, Markets Insider, Tech Insider)		1 2 3 4 5 6	2015	There is no consensus on the reliability of Business Insider. The site's syndicated content, which may not be clearly marked, should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher.	1   2   3
Bustle		2019	2019	There is consensus that the reliability of Bustle is unclear and that its reliability should be decided on an instance by instance basis. Editors noted that it has an editorial policy and that it will issue retractions. Editors also noted previous issues it had around reliability and that its content is written by freelance writers – though there is no consensus on whether this model affects their reliability.	1
BuzzFeed		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8	2018	Editors find the quality of BuzzFeed articles to be highly inconsistent. A 2014 study from the Pew Research Center found BuzzFeed to be the least trusted news source in America. BuzzFeed may use A/B testing for new articles, which may cause article content to change. BuzzFeed operates a separate news division, BuzzFeed News, which has higher editorial standards and is now hosted on a different website. See also: BuzzFeed News.	1
BuzzFeed News		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8	2019	There is consensus that BuzzFeed News is generally reliable. BuzzFeed News now operates separately from BuzzFeed, and most news content originally hosted on BuzzFeed was moved to the BuzzFeed News website in 2018. In light of the staff layoffs at BuzzFeed in January 2019, some editors recommend exercising more caution for BuzzFeed News articles published after this date. The site's opinion pieces should be handled with WP:RSOPINION. See also: BuzzFeed.	1   2
Cato Institute		1 2	2015	The Cato Institute is considered generally reliable for its opinion. Some editors consider the Cato Institute an authoritative source on libertarianism in the United States. There is no consensus on whether it is generally reliable on other topics. Most editors consider the Cato Institute biased or opinionated, so its uses should be attributed.	1
CelebrityNetWorth		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9	2018	There is consensus that CelebrityNetWorth is generally unreliable. CelebrityNetWorth does not disclose its methodology, and its accuracy has been criticized by The New York Times.	1
Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR)		2020	2020	The Center for Economic and Policy Research is an economic policy think tank. Though its articles are regularly written by subject-matter experts in economics and are frequently cited by reliable sources, most editors consider the CEPR biased or opinionated, so its uses should be attributed.	1
Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG, Global Research, globalresearch.ca)		2019 1 2 3 4 5 6 7	2019	Due to persistent abuse, Global Research is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. The Centre for Research on Globalization is an organization that operates the Global Research website (globalresearch.ca, not to be confused with GlobalSecurity.org). The CRG is considered generally unreliable due to its propagation of conspiracy theories and lack of editorial oversight. It is biased or opinionated, and its content is likely to constitute undue weight. As it often covers fringe material, parity of sources should be considered.	1   2   3
CESNUR (Center for Studies on New Religions, Centro Studi sulle Nuove Religioni)		1 2 3 4	2019	CESNUR is an apologia site for new religious movements, and thus is inherently unreliable in its core area due to conflicts of interest. There is also consensus that its content is unreliable on its own merits.	1
The Christian Science Monitor (CSM, CS Monitor)		20	2016	The Christian Science Monitor is considered generally reliable for news.	1
CliffsNotes		1 2	2018	CliffsNotes is a study guide. Editors consider CliffsNotes usable for superficial analyses of literature, and recommend supplementing CliffsNotes citations with additional sources.	1
Climate Feedback		1 2 3	2019	Climate Feedback is a fact-checking website that is considered generally reliable for topics related to climate change. It discloses its methodologies and has been endorsed by other reliable sources. Most editors do not consider Climate Feedback a self-published source due to its high reviewer requirements.	1
CNET (Computer Network)		16	2015	CNET is considered generally reliable for technology-related articles.	1
CNN (Cable News Network)		2019 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8	2019	There is consensus that news broadcast or published by CNN is generally reliable. However, iReport consists solely of user-generated content, and talk show content should be treated as opinion pieces. Some editors consider CNN somewhat biased, though not to the extent that it affects reliability.	1
CNSNews.com (Cybercast News Service)		2019 1 2	2019	In the 2019 RfC, editors expressed a unanimous consensus that CNSNews.com is generally unreliable for factual reporting. See also: Media Research Center.	1
CoinDesk		2018  2019 1 2 3	2019	There is consensus that CoinDesk should not be used to establish notability for article topics, and that it should be avoided in favor of more mainstream sources. Check CoinDesk articles for conflict of interest disclosures, and verify whether their parent company (Digital Currency Group) has an ownership stake in a company covered by CoinDesk.	1
The Conversation		1 2 3	2019	The Conversation publishes articles from academics who are subject-matter experts. It is generally reliable for subjects in the authors' areas of expertise. Opinions published in The Conversation should be handled with WP:RSOPINION.	1
Cosmopolitan		1 2 3 4 5 6	2019	There is no consensus on the reliability of Cosmopolitan. It is generally regarded as a situational source, which means context is important. The treatment of Cosmopolitan as a source should be decided on a case-by-case basis, depending on the article and the information to be verified.	1
CounterPunch		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8	2016	There is no consensus regarding the reliability of CounterPunch. As a biased or opinionated source, its statements should be attributed.	1
Cracked.com		1 2 3 4 5	2015	Cracked.com is a humor website. There is consensus that Cracked.com is generally unreliable. When Cracked.com cites another source for an article, it is preferable for editors to cite that source instead.	1
Crunchbase		2019 1 2	2019	In the 2019 RfC, there was consensus to deprecate Crunchbase, but also to continue allowing external links to the website. A significant proportion of Crunchbase's data is user-generated content.	1
The Daily Beast		1 2 3	2019	The Daily Beast is considered generally reliable for news. Most editors consider The Daily Beast a biased or opinionated source. Some editors advise caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons.	1
The Daily Caller		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. Most editors indicated that The Daily Caller is a partisan source with regard to United States politics and that their statements on this topic should be attributed.	1   2
The Daily Dot		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 A	2018	The Daily Dot is considered generally reliable for Internet culture. Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article.	1
Daily Express		1 2 3 4	2019	The Daily Express is a tabloid with a number of similarities to the Daily Mail.	1
Daily Kos		1 2 3	2017	There is consensus that Daily Kos should generally be avoided as a source, especially for controversial political topics where better sources are available. As an activism blog that publishes user-generated content with a far-left bias, many editors consider Daily Kos to inappropriately blur news reporting and opinion.	1
Daily Mail (MailOnline)		2017  2019 +39	2019	The Daily Mail was deprecated in the 2017 RfC, and the decision was reaffirmed in the 2019 RfC. There is consensus that the Daily Mail (including its online version, MailOnline) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles. The Daily Mail may be used in rare cases in an about-self fashion. Some editors regard the Daily Mail as reliable historically, so old articles may be used in a historical context. The restriction is often incorrectly interpreted as a "ban" on the Daily Mail.	1   2   3
Daily Mirror		1 2 3	2018	The Daily Mirror is a tabloid newspaper that publishes tabloid journalism. There is no consensus on whether its reliability is comparable to other British tabloids, such as Daily Mail or The Sun.	1
Daily Star (UK)		1 2 3 4	2018	The Daily Star is a tabloid that is generally considered less reliable than the Daily Mail.	1
The Daily Telegraph (The Telegraph)		16	2018	There is consensus that The Daily Telegraph (also known as The Telegraph) is generally reliable. Some editors believe that The Daily Telegraph is biased or opinionated for politics.	1
Deadline Hollywood		1 2 3 4 5 6	2019	Deadline Hollywood is considered generally reliable for entertainment-related articles.	1   2
Democracy Now!		1 2 3 4 5	2013	There is no consensus on the reliability of Democracy Now!. Most editors consider Democracy Now! a partisan source whose statements should be attributed. Syndicated content published by Democracy Now! should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher.	1
Deseret News		1 2 3	2016	The Deseret News is considered generally reliable for local news. It is owned by a subsidiary of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and there is no consensus on whether the Deseret News is independent of the LDS Church. The publication's statements on topics regarding the LDS Church should be attributed. The Deseret News includes a supplement, the Church News, which is considered a primary source as an official publication of the LDS Church.	1
Digital Spy		1 2 3 4 5 A	2012	There is consensus that Digital Spy is generally reliable for entertainment and popular culture. Consider whether the information from this source constitutes due or undue weight.	1   2
Discogs		2019 1 2 3 4 5	2019	The content on Discogs is user-generated, and is therefore generally unreliable. There was consensus against deprecating Discogs in a 2019 RfC, as editors noted that external links to the site may be appropriate.	1
Dotdash (About.com, The Balance, Lifewire, The Spruce, ThoughtCo, TripSavvy, Verywell)		2018 +15	2019	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 self-published sources, and only using articles published by established experts. About.com also previously served as a Wikipedia mirror; using republished Wikipedia content is considered circular sourcing. In 2017, the About.com website became defunct and some of its content was moved to Dotdash's current website brands. Due to persistent violations of WP:MEDRS, verywellfamily.com, verywellhealth.com, and verywellmind.com are on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. See also: Investopedia.	1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10
E! (E! News, E! Online, Entertainment Television)		1 2 3	2019	There is no consensus on the reliability of the E! television network, including its website E! Online. It is generally regarded as usable for celebrity news. Consider whether the information from this source constitutes due or undue weight, especially when the subject is a living person.	1
The Economist		1 2 3 4	2018	Most editors consider The Economist generally reliable. The Economist publishes magazine blogs and opinion pieces, which should be handled with the respective guidelines.	1
The Electronic Intifada (EI)		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8	2018	There is consensus that The Electronic Intifada is generally unreliable with respect to its reputation for accuracy, fact-checking, and error-correction. Almost all editors consider The Electronic Intifada a biased and opinionated source, so their statements should be attributed.	1
Encyclopædia Britannica (Encyclopædia Britannica Online)		11	2019	The Encyclopædia Britannica (including its online edition, Encyclopædia Britannica Online) is a tertiary source with a strong reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Most editors prefer reliable secondary sources over the Encyclopædia Britannica when available. In January 2009, the Encyclopædia Britannica Online began accepting 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
Engadget		1 A	2012	Engadget is considered generally reliable for technology-related articles.	1
Entertainment Weekly (EW)		1 2 3 A	2018	Entertainment Weekly is considered generally reliable for entertainment-related articles. There is no consensus on whether it is reliable for other topics.	1
The Epoch Times		2019 1 2 3 4 5	2019	The Epoch Times was deprecated in the 2019 RfC. Most editors classify The Epoch Times as an advocacy group for the Falun Gong, and consider the publication a biased or opinionated source that frequently publishes conspiracy theories. As is the case with Breitbart News and Occupy Democrats, this does not mean that The Epoch Times can no longer be used, just that it can never again be used as a reference for facts.	1   2
Evening Standard (London Evening Standard)		1 2 3 4 5 6	2018	There is no consensus on the reliability of the Evening Standard. Despite being a free newspaper, it is generally considered more reliable than most British tabloids and middle-market newspapers.	1
Examiner.com		2009 1 2 3 4 5 6 7	2014	Due to persistent abuse, Examiner.com is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. Examiner.com is considered a self-published source, as it has minimal editorial oversight. Most editors believe the site has a poor reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Prior to 2004, the examiner.com domain was used by The San Francisco Examiner, which has moved to a different domain. Examiner.com was shut down in 2016.	1
Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR)		2010 1 2 3 4 5	2014	There is no consensus on the reliability of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. However, there is strong consensus that publications from FAIR should not be used to support exceptional claims regarding living persons. Most editors consider FAIR a biased or opinionated source whose statements should be attributed and generally treated as opinions.	1
FamilySearch		1 2 3 4 5 6	2018	FamilySearch operates a genealogy site that incorporates a large amount of user-generated content. Editors see no evidence that FamilySearch performs fact-checking, and believe that the site has a questionable reputation for accuracy. FamilySearch also hosts primary source documents, such as birth certificates, which may be usable in limited situations. When using primary source documents from FamilySearch, follow WP:BLPPRIMARY and avoid interpreting them with original research.	1
Famous Birthdays		2018 1 2 3 4 5	2019	Due to persistent abuse, Famous Birthdays is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. There is consensus that Famous Birthdays is generally unreliable. Famous Birthdays does not provide sources for its content, claim to have an editorial team, or claim to perform fact-checking. Do not use this site for information regarding living persons.	1
Fandom (Wikia, Wikicities)		1 2 3 4 5 6	2019	Fandom (formerly Wikia and Wikicities) is considered generally unreliable because open wikis are self-published sources. Although citing Wikia as a source is against policy, copying Fandom content into Wikipedia is permissible if it is published under a compatible license (some wikis may use licenses like CC BY-NC and CC BY-NC-ND, which are incompatible). Use the {{Wikia content}} template to provide the necessary attribution in these cases, and ensure the article meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines after copying.	1   2   3
Financial Times		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8	2018	The Financial Times is considered generally reliable.	1
Find a Grave		1 2 3 4	2016	The content on Find a Grave is user-generated, and is therefore considered generally unreliable. Links to Find a Grave may sometimes be included in the external links section of articles, when the site offers valuable additional content, such as images not permitted for use on Wikipedia. Use care that the Find a Grave page does not itself contain prohibited content, such as copyright violations.	1
Findmypast		1 2 3 4 5	2019	Findmypast is a genealogy site that hosts transcribed primary source documents, which is covered under WP:BLPPRIMARY. The site's birth and death certificate records include the event's date of registration, not the date of the event itself. Editors caution against interpreting the documents with original research and note that the transcription process may introduce errors. Findmypast also hosts user-generated family trees, which are unreliable. The Wikipedia Library previously offered access to Findmypast.	1
Forbes		1 2 3 4 5	2018	Forbes and Forbes.com include articles written by their staff, which are written with editorial oversight, and are generally reliable. Forbes also publishes various "top" lists which can be referenced in articles. See also: Forbes.com contributors.	1
Forbes.com contributors		11	2020	Most content on Forbes.com is written by contributors with minimal editorial oversight, and is generally unreliable. Editors show consensus for treating Forbes.com contributor articles as self-published sources, unless the article was written by a subject-matter expert. Articles that have also been published in the print edition of Forbes are excluded, and are considered generally reliable. Check the byline to determine whether an article is written by "Forbes Staff" or a "Contributor", and check underneath the byline to see whether it was published in a print issue of Forbes. Previously, Forbes.com contributor articles could be identified by their URL beginning in "forbes.com/sites"; the URL no longer distinguishes them, as Forbes staff articles have also been moved under "/sites". See also: Forbes.	1
Fox News (news and website)		2010 +19	2019	Fox News news programs are produced by their News department. Shows include America's Newsroom, Shepard Smith Reporting, Special Report with Bret Baier, and The Story with Martha MacCallum. Editors show consensus that news reports from Fox News are generally reliable. The 2010 RfC concluded: "Consensus is that while Fox may not always be reliable it is a Reliable Source", and pointed to the WP:NEWSORG guideline. Most editors consider Fox News a partisan news organization, and defer to the respective guidelines for these types of sources. Editors are advised to exercise caution when using Fox News as a source for political topics, and to attribute statements of opinion. See also: Fox News (talk shows).	1
Fox News (talk shows)		2010 +10	2019	Fox News talk shows are produced by their Programming department. Shows include Hannity, Tucker Carlson Tonight, The Ingraham Angle, and Fox & Friends. Content from these shows is equivalent to opinion pieces and should be handled with the appropriate guideline. Statements from these shows should be attributed. See also: Fox News (news and website).	1
The Gateway Pundit		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
Gawker		2019 1 2 3 4 5 6 7	2019	Gawker is an inactive gossip blog that frequently published articles on rumors and speculation without named authors. When Gawker is the only source for a piece of information, the information would likely constitute undue weight, especially when the subject is a living person. When another reliable source quotes information from Gawker, it is preferable to cite that source instead. In the 2019 RfC, there was no consensus on whether Gawker should be deprecated.	1
Geni.com		1 2 3 4 5	2019	Geni.com is a genealogy site that is considered generally unreliable because it is an open wiki, which is a type of self-published source. Primary source documents from Geni.com may be usable under WP:BLPPRIMARY to support reliable secondary sources, but avoid interpreting them with original research.	1
Genius (Rap Genius)		1 2	2019	Song lyrics, annotations and descriptions on Genius are mostly user-generated content and are thus generally unreliable. There is no consensus on the reliability of articles, interviews and videos produced by Genius. Verified commentary from musicians fall under WP:BLPSELFPUB, and usage of such commentary should conform to that policy.	1   2
Global Times (Huanqiu Shibao)		1 2 3	2019	The Global Times is a tabloid operated under the People's Daily and owned by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China. There is no consensus on the reliability of the Global Times. It is a biased or opinionated source. Although the Global Times is a state-owned publication, its statements are not necessarily representative of China's official positions, and should be attributed to the Global Times itself, not to the Chinese government.	1   2
Goodreads		1 2	2018	Goodreads is a social cataloging site comprising user-generated content. As a self-published source, Goodreads is considered generally unreliable.	1
Google Maps (Google Street View)		1 2 3 4 5	2017	Google Maps and Google Street View may be useful for some purposes, including finding and verifying geographic coordinates and other basic information like street names. However, especially for objects like boundaries (of neighborhoods, allotments, etc.), where other reliable sources are available they should be treated preferentially to Google Maps and Google Street View. It can also be difficult or impossible to determine the veracity of past citations, since Google Maps data is not publicly archived, and may be removed or replaced as soon as it is not current. Inferring information solely from Street View pictures may be considered original research. Note that due to restrictions on geographic data in China, OpenStreetMap coordinates for places in mainland China are almost always much more accurate than Google's – despite OpenStreetMap being user-generated – due to the severe distortion introduced by most commercial map providers. (References, in any case, are usually not required for geographic coordinates.)	1   2
The Guardian (TheGuardian.com, The Manchester Guardian, The Observer)		15	2019	There is consensus that The Guardian is generally reliable. The Guardian's op-eds should be handled with WP:RSOPINION. Some editors believe The Guardian is biased or opinionated for politics. See also: The Guardian blogs.	1   2   3
The Guardian blogs		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10	2020	Most editors say that The Guardian blogs should be treated as newspaper blogs or opinion pieces due to reduced editorial oversight. Check the bottom of the article for a "blogposts" tag to determine whether the page is a blog post or a non-blog article. See also: The Guardian.	1   2   3
Haaretz (Ḥadashot Ha'aretz)		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9	2018	Haaretz is considered generally reliable. Some editors believe that Haaretz reports with a political slant, particularly with respect to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which makes it biased or opinionated. The publication's opinion pieces should be handled with the appropriate guideline.	1   2
Hansard (UK Parliament transcripts, House of Commons, House of Lords)		1 2 3 4	2019	As a transcript of parliament proceedings in the United Kingdom, Hansard is a primary source and its statements should be attributed to whoever made them. Hansard is considered generally reliable for UK parliamentary proceedings and UK government statements. It is not considered reliable as a secondary source as it merely contains the personal opinions of whoever is speaking in Parliament that day, and is subject to Parliamentary privilege. Hansard is not a word-for-word transcript and may omit repetitions and redundancies.	1   2   3   4   5   6
Heat Street		1 2	2017	Although Heat Street was owned by Dow Jones & Company, a usually reputable publisher, many editors note that Heat Street does not clearly differentiate between its news articles and opinion. There is a consensus that Heat Street is a partisan source. Some editors consider Heat Street's opinion pieces and news articles written by its staff to be usable with attribution, though due weight must be considered because Heat Street covers many political topics not as talked about in higher-profile sources.	1
Heavy.com		1 2	2019	There is consensus that Heavy.com should not be relied upon for any serious or contentious statements, including dates of birth. When Heavy.com cites another source for their own article, it is preferable to cite the original source instead.	1
The Hill		10	2019	The Hill is considered generally reliable for American politics. The publication's opinion pieces should be handled with the appropriate guideline. The publication's contributor pieces, labeled in their bylines, receive minimal editorial oversight and should be treated as equivalent to self-published sources.	1
HispanTV		2019	2019	HispanTV was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed overwhelming consensus that the TV channel is generally unreliable and sometimes broadcasts outright fabrications. Editors listed multiple examples of HispanTV broadcasting conspiracy theories and Iranian propaganda.	1   2
The Hollywood Reporter (THR)		1 2 3 4 5	2018	There is consensus that The Hollywood Reporter is generally reliable for entertainment-related topics, including its articles and reviews on film, TV and music, as well as its box office figures.	1
Hope not Hate (Searchlight)		2018 1 2 3 4 5	2019	Most commenters declined to make a general statement about publications from Hope not Hate. Reliability should be assessed on a case by case basis, while taking context into account. Because they are an advocacy group, they are a biased and opinionated source and their statements should be attributed.	1   2
HuffPost (The Huffington Post)		17	2019	There is no consensus on the reliability of HuffPost. As HuffPost is a newer publication, some editors prefer to use reliable sources with more established reputations. Some editors believe the site reports with a political slant, which makes it biased or opinionated. HuffPost's syndicated content should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher. See also: HuffPost contributors.	1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16
HuffPost contributors		17	2018	HuffPost includes content written by contributors with minimal editorial oversight. These contributors generally do not have a reputation for fact-checking, and most editors criticize the quality of their content. Editors show consensus for treating HuffPost contributor articles as self-published sources, unless the article was written by a 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.	1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16
Human Events		1 2 3	2019	Editors consider Human Events biased or opinionated, and its statements should be attributed. In May 2019, a former editor-in-chief of Breitbart News became the editor-in-chief of Human Events; articles published after the leadership change are considered generally unreliable. There is no consensus on the reliability of Human Events's older content.	1
Idolator		1 2 3 4 5	2017	There is consensus that Idolator is generally reliable for popular music. Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article.	1
IMDb (Internet Movie Database)		2019 +15	2019	The content on IMDb is user-generated, and the site is considered unreliable by a majority of editors. WP:Citing IMDb describes two exceptions, both of which do not require citations because the film itself is implied to be the primary source. Although certain content on the site is reviewed by staff, editors criticize the quality of IMDb's fact-checking. A number of editors have pointed out that IMDb content has been copied from other sites, including Wikipedia, and that there have been a number of notable hoaxes in the past. The use of IMDb as an external link is generally considered appropriate (see WP:ELP).	1
The Independent		1 2 3	2019	The Independent, a British newspaper, is considered a reliable source for non-specialist information. In March 2016, the publication discontinued its print edition to become an online newspaper; some editors advise caution for articles published after this date.	1
Independent Journal Review (IJR)		1 2 3	2018	There is no consensus on the reliability of the Independent Journal Review. Posts from "community" members are considered self-published sources. The site's "news" section consists mostly of syndicated stories from Reuters, and citations of these stories should preferably point to Reuters.	1
Independent Media Center (Indymedia, IMC)		1 2	2019	The Independent Media Center is an open publishing network. Editors express low confidence in Indymedia's reputation for fact-checking, and consider Indymedia a self-published source.	1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17
InfoWars (NewsWars)		2018  2018  2018 1	2018	Due to persistent abuse, InfoWars is on both the Wikipedia spam blacklist and the Wikimedia global spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. InfoWars was deprecated in the 2018 RfC, which showed unanimous consensus that the site publishes fake news and conspiracy theories. The use of InfoWars as a reference should be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. InfoWars should not be used for determining notability, or used as a secondary source in articles.	1   2   3   4
Inter Press Service (IPS)		1 2	2011	The Inter Press Service is a news agency. There is consensus that the Inter Press Service is generally reliable for news.	1   2   3
The Intercept		1 2	2019	There is consensus that The Intercept is generally reliable for news. Almost all editors consider The Intercept a biased source, so uses may need to be attributed. For science, editors prefer peer-reviewed journals over news sources like The Intercept.	1
International Business Times (IBT, IBTimes)		1 2 3 4 5 6 7	2019	There is consensus that the International Business Times is generally unreliable. Editors note that the publication's editorial practices have been criticized by other reliable sources, and point to the inconsistent quality of the site's articles. The site's syndicated content, which may not be clearly marked, should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher.	1   2   3   4   5   6
Investopedia		1 2 3	2018	Investopedia is owned by Dotdash (formerly known as About.com). There is no consensus on the reliability of Investopedia. It is a tertiary source. See also: Dotdash.	1
JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association)		1 2	2018	JAMA is a peer-reviewed medical journal published by the American Medical Association. It is considered generally reliable. Opinion pieces from JAMA, including articles from The Jama Forum, are subject to WP:RSOPINION and might not qualify under WP:MEDRS.	1
Jewish Virtual Library (JVL)		1 2 3 4 5 A	2015	The Jewish Virtual Library is a tertiary source with a strong reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Most editors prefer reliable secondary sources over the Jewish Virtual Library when available.	1
Jezebel		1 2 3	2016	There is consensus that Jezebel should generally be avoided as a source, especially on biographies of living persons. Many editors consider Jezebel to inappropriately blur news reporting and opinion. Some editors say that Jezebel is biased or opinionated.	1
Know Your Meme (KYM)		1 2 3 4	2013	Know Your Meme "submissions" are user-generated content and thus are generally unreliable. There is no consensus on the reliability of their video series and "confirmed" entries.	1
Last.fm		2019 1	2019	Last.fm was deprecated in the 2019 RfC. The content on Last.fm is user-generated, and is considered generally unreliable.	1
Lenta.ru		2019  2020 1	2020	Due to persistent abuse, Lenta.ru is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. Lenta.ru was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the site frequently publishes conspiracy theories and Russian propaganda, owing to a mass dismissal of staff in March 2014. The use of Lenta.ru as a reference should be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. Lenta.ru should not be used for determining notability, or used as a secondary source in articles.	1
LifeSiteNews (Campaign Life Coalition)		2019 1 2 3 4	2019	LifeSiteNews was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the site publishes false or fabricated information.	1
LinkedIn		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8	2017	LinkedIn is a social network. As a self-published source, it is considered generally unreliable and should be avoided unless the post is used for an uncontroversial self-description. In most exceptional cases, LinkedIn accounts should only be cited if they are verified accounts or if the user's identity is confirmed in some way. Posts that are not covered by reliable sources are likely to constitute undue weight. LinkedIn should never be used for third-party claims related to living persons.	1
LiveJournal		1 2 3	2012	LiveJournal is a blog hosting service. As a self-published source, it is considered generally unreliable. LiveJournal can be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions and content from subject-matter experts, but not as a secondary source for living persons.	1
LiveLeak		2019 1 2 3 4	2019	Due to persistent abuse, LiveLeak is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. LiveLeak is an online video platform that hosts user-generated content. Many of the videos on LiveLeak are copyright violations, and should not be linked to per WP:COPYLINK. The use of LiveLeak as a primary source is questionable in most cases, as the provenance of most of the videos is unclear.	1
Los Angeles Times		1 2 3 4 5 6	2016	Most editors consider the Los Angeles Times generally reliable. Refer to WP:NEWSBLOG for the newspaper's blog.	1
Lulu.com (Lulu Press)		2008 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9	2019	Due to persistent abuse, Lulu.com is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. Lulu.com is a print-on-demand publisher, which is a type of self-published source. Books published through Lulu.com can be used if they are written by a subject-matter expert. Occasionally, a reputable publisher uses Lulu.com as a printer; in this case, cite the original publisher instead of Lulu.com.	1
Marquis Who's Who (Who's Who in America)		1 2 3 4 5	2017	Marquis Who's Who, including its publication Who's Who in America, is considered generally unreliable. As most of its content is provided by the person concerned, editors generally consider Marquis Who's Who comparable to a self-published source. There is a broad consensus that Marquis Who's Who should not be used to establish notability for article topics. See also: Who's Who (UK).	1   2
The Mary Sue		1 2 A B	2016	There is no consensus on the reliability of The Mary Sue. It is generally regarded as usable for reviews and opinion, though not for its reblogged content.	1
Media Bias/Fact Check		1 2 3	2019	There is consensus that Media Bias/Fact Check is generally unreliable. Editors have questioned the methodology of the site's ratings.	1
Media Matters for America (MMfA)		2010  2019 +10	2019	There is no consensus on the reliability of Media Matters for America. As a biased or opinionated source, their statements should be attributed.	1
Media Research Center (MRCTV, NewsBusters)		2010 1 2 3 4	2020	There is no consensus on the reliability of Media Research Center publications, including NewsBusters. As a biased or opinionated source, their statements should be attributed. See also: CNSNews.com.	1   2   3
Mediaite		1 2 3	2019	There is some consensus that Mediaite is only marginally reliable, and should be avoided where better sources are available. Editors consider the source to inappropriately blur news and opinion, and due weight should be considered if no other reliable sources support a given statement.	1
Medium		1 2 3	2019	Medium is a blog hosting service. As a self-published source, it is considered generally unreliable and should be avoided unless the author is a subject-matter expert or the blog is used for uncontroversial self-descriptions. Medium should never be used as a secondary source for living persons.	1
MetalSucks		1 2 A	2018	MetalSucks is considered usable for its reviews and news articles. Avoid its overly satirical content and exercise caution when MetalSucks is the only source making a statement.	1
Metro (British newspaper)		1 2 3 4 5 6 7	2017	The reliability of Metro has been compared to that of the Daily Mail and other British tabloids. Articles published in the print newspaper (accessible via metro.news domain) are considered more reliable than articles published only on the metro.co.uk website.	1   2
MintPress News		2019	2019	MintPress News was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the site publishes false or fabricated information.	1
Mondoweiss		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8	2019	Mondoweiss is a news website operated by the Center for Economic Research and Social Change (CERSC), an advocacy organization. There is no consensus on the reliability of Mondoweiss. Editors consider the site biased or opinionated, and its statements should be attributed.	1
Morning Star (UK)		1 2 3 A B	2019	The Morning Star is a British tabloid with a low circulation and readership that the New Statesman has described as "Britain's last communist newspaper". There is no consensus on whether the Morning Star engages in factual reporting, and broad consensus that it is a biased and partisan source. All uses of the Morning Star should be attributed. Take care to ensure that content from the Morning Star constitutes due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy.	1
Mother Jones (MoJo)		1 2 3 4 5	2019	There is consensus that Mother Jones is generally reliable. Almost all editors consider Mother Jones a biased source, so its statements (particularly on political topics) may need to be attributed. Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article.	1
MyLife (Reunion.com)		2019  2019 1	2019	Due to persistent abuse, MyLife is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. MyLife (formerly known as Reunion.com) is an information broker that publishes user-generated content, and is considered generally unreliable.	1   2
The Nation		1 2 3 4 5 6 7	2020	There is consensus that The Nation is generally reliable. Most editors consider The Nation a partisan source whose statements should be attributed. The publication's opinion pieces should be handled with the appropriate guideline. Take care to ensure that content from The Nation constitutes due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy.	1
National Enquirer		2019 1 2 3 4 5 6	2019	The National Enquirer is a supermarket tabloid that is considered generally unreliable. In the 2019 RfC, there was weak consensus to deprecate the National Enquirer as a source, but no consensus to create an edit filter to warn editors against using the publication.	1
National Review (NR)		1 2 3 4 5 6	2018	There is no consensus on the reliability of National Review. Most editors consider National Review a partisan source whose statements should be attributed. The publication's opinion pieces should be handled with the appropriate guideline. Take care to ensure that content from the National Review constitutes due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy.	1
Natural News (NewsTarget)		2019 1 A B	2019	Due to persistent abuse, Natural News is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. There is a near-unanimous consensus that the site repeatedly publishes false or fabricated information, including a large number of conspiracy theories.	1   2
The New American		1 2 3 4 5 6	2016	There is a general consensus that The New American is generally unreliable for factual reporting. Some editors consider it usable for attributed opinions regarding the John Birch Society.	1
New York (Vulture, The Cut, Grub Street, Daily Intelligencer)		1 2 3 4	2016	There is consensus that New York magazine, including its subsidiary publication Vulture, is generally reliable. There is no consensus on whether it is generally reliable for contentious statements.	1   2   3   4
New York Daily News (Illustrated Daily News)		1 2 3	2017	There is no consensus regarding the reliability of the New York Daily News. The New York Daily News is a tabloid newspaper that publishes tabloid journalism.	1
New York Post (New York Evening Post, Page Six)		1 2 3 4 5	2019	There is no consensus regarding the reliability of the New York Post. The New York Post is a tabloid newspaper with high circulation, and most editors prefer more reliable sources when available. The New York Post operates Page Six, its gossip section.	1   2
The New York Times (NYT)		2018 +33	2019	Most editors consider The New York Times generally reliable. WP:RSOPINION should be used to evaluate opinion columns, while WP:NEWSBLOG should be used for the blogs on The New York Times's website. The 2018 RfC cites WP:MEDPOP to establish that popular press sources such as The New York Times should generally not be used to support medical claims.	1
The New Yorker		1 2	2011	There is consensus that The New Yorker is generally reliable. Editors note the publication's robust fact-checking process.	1
News of the World		2019	2019	News of the World was deprecated in the 2019 RfC. There is consensus that News of the World is generally unreliable. As is the case with The Sun, News of the World should not be used as a reference in most cases aside from about-self usage, and should not be used to determine 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.	1   2
Newsmax		1 2	2013	Discussions regarding Newsmax are dated, with the most recent occurring in 2013. Circumstances may have changed. Discussions are also lacking in depth, and in focus on evaluating this source specifically. Newsmax has been cited in discussions of other sources as a low benchmark for a partisan outlet with regard to US politics, and for a propensity for comparatively fringe viewpoints.	1
Newsweek (pre-2013)		2019 1 2 3 4 5	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 The Newsweek Daily Beast Company (which also owned The Daily Beast). Blogs under Newsweek, including The Gaggle, should be handled with the WP:NEWSBLOG policy, though. See also: Newsweek (2013–present).	1
Newsweek (2013–present)		2019 1 2 3 4	2019	Unlike articles before 2013, post-2013 Newsweek articles are not generally reliable. From 2013 to 2018, Newsweek was owned and operated by IBT Media, the parent company of International Business Times. IBT Media introduced a number of bad practices to the once reputable magazine and mainly focused on clickbait headlines over quality journalism. Its current relationship with IBT Media is unclear, and Newsweek's quality has not returned to its status prior to the 2013 purchase. Many editors have noted that there are several exceptions to this standard, so consensus is to evaluate Newsweek content on a case-by-case basis. See also: Newsweek (pre-2013).	1
The Next Web (TNW)		1 2 3 4	2019	There is no consensus on the reliability of The Next Web. Articles written by contributors may be subject to reduced or no editorial oversight. Avoid using The Next Web's sponsored content.	1
NNDB (Notable Names Database)		2019 1 2 3 4	2019	NNDB is a biographical database operated by Soylent Communications, the parent company of shock site Rotten.com. It was deprecated in the 2019 RfC. Editors note NNDB's poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, despite the site claiming to have an editorial process. Editors have also found instances of NNDB incorporating content from Wikipedia, which would make the use of the affected pages circular sourcing.	1
Occupy Democrats		2018	2018	In the 2018 RfC, there was clear consensus to deprecate Occupy Democrats as a source a la the Daily Mail. As with Breitbart News, this does not mean it cannot ever be used on Wikipedia; it means it cannot be used as a reference for facts. It can still be used as a primary source for attributing opinions, viewpoints, and the like.	1
One America News Network (OANN)		2019 1	2019	In the 2019 RfC, there was clear consensus to deprecate One America News Network as a source a la the Daily Mail. Editors noted that One America News Network published a number of falsehoods, conspiracy theories, and intentionally misleading stories that do not support the pillars and core policies of Wikipedia. One America News Network should not be used, ever, as a reference for facts, due to its unreliability. It can still be used as a primary source when attributing opinions, viewpoints, and commentary, meaning that it should not be used as a source outside of its own article.	1
The Onion		1 2	2019	The Onion is a satirical news website, and should not be used as a source for facts.	1
Patheos		1 2 3	2015	Patheos is a website that hosts a collection of blogs. These blogs receive little editorial oversight and should be treated as self-published sources. Some editors have shown support for including Patheos articles as a source when cited together with other more reliable sources.	1
People		2013 1 2 3 4	2014	There is consensus that People magazine can be a reliable source in biographies of living persons, but the magazine should not be used for contentious facts.	1
Pew Research Center		1 2	2012	There is consensus that the Pew Research Center is generally reliable.	1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8
PinkNews (Pink News)		1 2	2011	There is no consensus on the reliability of PinkNews. It is generally regarded as biased or opinionated.	1
Playboy		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8	2015	There is consensus that Playboy is generally reliable. Editors note the publication's reputation for high-quality interviews and fact-checking.	1
The Points Guy (news and reviews) (TPG)		2018  2019 A B C	2019	There is no consensus on the reliability of news articles and reviews on The Points Guy. The Points Guy has advertising relationships with credit card and travel companies, and content involving these companies should be avoided as sources. The Points Guy is currently on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. See also: The Points Guy (sponsored content).	1   2
The Points Guy (sponsored content) (TPG)		2018  2019 A B C	2019	There is consensus that sponsored content on The Points Guy, including content involving credit cards, should not be used as sources. The Points Guy has advertising relationships with credit card and travel companies, receiving compensation from readers signing up for credit cards via the website's links. The Points Guy is currently on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. See also: The Points Guy (news and reviews).	1
Politico		1 2 3 4 5 6	2018	Politico is considered generally reliable for American politics. A small number of editors say that Politico is a biased source.	1
PolitiFact (PunditFact)		2016  2019	2019	PolitiFact is a reliable source for reporting the veracity of statements made by political candidates. PolitiFact is a reliable source for reporting the percentage of false statements made by a political candidate (of the statements checked by PolitiFact), provided that attribution is given, as a primary source.	1
Press TV		1 2 3 4 5 6	2019	There is consensus that Press TV is generally unreliable. As a state-owned media network in a country with low press freedom, Press TV may be a primary source for the viewpoint of the Iranian government, although due weight should be considered. Press TV is biased or opinionated, and its statements should be attributed. Press TV is particularly known for promoting anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, including Holocaust denial.	1   2
ProPublica		2019 1	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
Quackwatch		2019 +13	2019	Articles written by Stephen Barrett on Quackwatch are considered generally reliable (as Barrett is a subject-matter expert) and self-published (as there is disagreement on the comprehensiveness of Quackwatch's editorial process); Barrett's articles should not be used as a source of information on other living persons. Articles written by other authors on Quackwatch are not considered self-published. Many editors believe uses of Quackwatch should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and some editors say its statements should be attributed. It may be preferable to use the sources cited by Quackwatch instead of Quackwatch itself. Since it often covers fringe material, parity of sources should be considered.	1
Quadrant		2019	2019	Most editors consider Quadrant generally unreliable for factual reporting. The publication is a biased and opinionated source.	1
Quillette		1 2 3	2019	There is consensus that Quillette is generally unreliable for facts. Opinions from Quillette are likely to constitute undue weight.	1
Quora		1 2 3 4	2019	Quora is a Q&A site. As an Internet forum, it is a self-published source that incorporates user-generated content, and is considered generally unreliable. Posts from verified accounts on Quora can be used as primary sources for statements about themselves. Posts from verified accounts of established experts may also be used to substantiate statements in their field of expertise, in accordance with the policy on self-published sources.	1
Rate Your Music (RYM, Cinemos, Glitchwave, Sonemic)		2019 1 A	2019	Rate Your Music was deprecated in the 2019 RfC. The content on Rate Your Music is user-generated, and is considered generally unreliable.	1   2   3   4
The Register (El Reg)		1 2 3 4 5 A	2017	The Register is considered generally reliable for technology-related articles. Some editors say that The Register is biased or opinionated on topics involving Wikipedia.	1
ResearchGate		1 2 3	2019	ResearchGate is a social network that hosts a repository of user-generated publications, including preprints. ResearchGate does not perform fact checking or peer reviewing, and is considered a self-published source. Verify whether a paper on ResearchGate is also published in a peer-reviewed academic journal; in these cases, cite the more reliable journal and provide an open access link to the paper (which may be hosted on ResearchGate).	1
Reuters		1 2 3	2018	Reuters is a news agency. There is consensus that Reuters is generally reliable. Syndicated reports from Reuters that are published in other sources are also considered generally reliable. Press releases published by Reuters are not automatically reliable.	1
RhythmOne (AllMusic, AllMovie, AllGame, All Media Guide, AllRovi)		25	2019	RhythmOne (who acquired All Media Guide, formerly AllRovi) operates the websites AllMusic, AllMovie, and AllGame (defunct). There is consensus that RhythmOne websites are usable for entertainment reviews with in-text attribution. Some editors question the accuracy of these websites for biographical details and recommend more reliable sources when available. Editors also advise against using AllMusic's genre classifications from the website's sidebar. Listings without accompanying prose do not count toward notability.	1   2   3
RIA Novosti		1 2 3 4	2016	RIA Novosti is an official news agency of the Russian government. There is a broad consensus that it is a biased and opinionated source. It is generally considered usable for official government statements and positions. There is no consensus on whether it is reliable for other topics, though opinions generally lean towards unreliability. See also: Sputnik, which replaced the international edition of RIA Novosti.	1   2
Rolling Stone		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9	2019	There is consensus that Rolling Stone is generally reliable. Rolling Stone's opinion pieces and reviews, as well as any contentious statements regarding living persons, should only be used with attribution. The publication's capsule reviews deserve less weight than their full-length reviews, as they are subject to a lower standard of fact-checking. Some editors say that Rolling Stone is a partisan source in the field of politics, and that their statements in this field should also be attributed.	1
Rotten Tomatoes		1 2 3 4 A	2014	Rotten Tomatoes is considered generally reliable for its review aggregation and its news articles on film and TV. There is no consensus on whether its blog articles and critic opinion pages are generally reliable for facts. There is consensus that user reviews on Rotten Tomatoes are generally unreliable, as they are self-published sources. Reviewers tracked by Rotten Tomatoes are not automatically reliable for their reviews, while there is no consensus on whether their "Top Critics" are generally reliable.	1
RT (general topics) (Russia Today)		1 2 3 4 5 6	2018	There is no consensus on the reliability of RT (formerly Russia Today). Well-established news outlets are normally considered reliable for statements of fact. However, RT is frequently described as a mouthpiece of the Russian government that engages in propaganda and disinformation, including the promotion of conspiracy theories. It is not generally reliable for topics that are controversial or related to international politics. The only discussion that was formally closed (discussion #3) examined whether RT is acceptable in more general circumstances and found no consensus. See also: RT (controversial topics, international politics).	1
RT (controversial topics, international politics) (Russia Today)		1 2 3 4 5 6	2018	RT is generally unreliable for topics that are controversial or related to international politics. See also: RT (general topics).	1
Salon		1 2 3	2018	There is no consensus on the reliability of Salon. Editors consider Salon biased or opinionated, and its statements should be attributed.	1
Science-Based Medicine		2019 1 2	2019	Science-Based Medicine is considered generally reliable, as it has a credible editorial board, publishes a robust set of editorial guidelines, and has been cited by other reliable sources. Editors do not consider Science-Based Medicine a self-published source, but it is also not a peer-reviewed publication with respect to WP:MEDRS. Since it often covers fringe material, parity of sources may be relevant.	1
ScienceBlogs		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A	2012	ScienceBlogs is an invitation-only network of blogs. There is no consensus on the reliability of ScienceBlogs articles in general, or whether it is a self-published source. Most editors consider ScienceBlogs articles written by subject-matter experts reliable, though articles outside the writer's relevant field are not.	1
Scribd		1 2 3 4	2016	Scribd operates a self-publishing platform for documents and audiobooks. It is considered generally unreliable, especially for biographies of living persons. Anyone can upload any document they'd like and there is no assurance that it hasn't been manipulated. Many documents on Scribd's self-publishing platform violate copyrights, so linking to them from Wikipedia would also violate the WP:COPYVIOEL guideline and the 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
Scriptural texts (Bible, Quran)		1 2 3 4	2018	The Bible and Quran, as scriptural texts, are primary sources only suitable for attributed, relevant quotes and in compliance with other Wikipedia content policies and guidelines. Content that interprets or summarizes scriptural passages or narratives should generally be cited to appropriate scholarly sources (for example, in the academic field of religious studies) and attributed when appropriate. Analysis of scriptural content by Wikipedia editors is prohibited by the Wikipedia policy regarding original research.	—
The Skeptic's Dictionary		1 2 3	2008	The Skeptic's Dictionary is considered generally reliable. Attribution may be necessary. In some cases, it's preferable to cite the sources cited by The Skeptic's Dictionary. As it often covers fringe material, parity of sources may be relevant.	1
Slate		1 2 3 A B	2015	Slate is considered generally reliable for its areas of expertise. Contrarian news articles may need to be attributed.	1   2
Snopes		13	2019	Snopes is considered generally reliable. Attribution may be necessary. Since it often covers fringe material, parity of sources may be relevant.	1
Softpedia		1 2 A	2019	Softpedia is considered reliable for its software and product reviews. There is no consensus on whether Softpedia news articles are generally reliable.	1
Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)		16	2019	The Southern Poverty Law Center is considered generally reliable on topics related to hate groups and extremism in the United States. As an advocacy group, the SPLC is a biased and opinionated source. The organization's views, especially when labeling hate groups, should be attributed per WP:RSOPINION. Take care to ensure that content from the SPLC constitutes due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy. Some editors have questioned the reliability of the SPLC on non-United States topics.	1
SparkNotes		1 2	2018	SparkNotes is a study guide. Editors consider SparkNotes usable for superficial analyses of literature, and recommend supplementing SparkNotes citations with additional sources.	1
The Spectator		1 2 3 4	2018	Most editors consider The Spectator (not to be confused with the unrelated American Spectator) generally reliable. Use WP:NEWSBLOG to evaluate the magazine's blogs and WP:RSOPINION for opinion pieces. The magazine is usually considered a partisan source with regard to UK politics.	1
Der Spiegel (Spiegel Online, SPON)		10	2018	There is consensus that Der Spiegel is generally reliable. Articles written by Claas Relotius are generally unreliable as this particular journalist has been found to fabricate articles.	1
Sputnik		1 2 3	2018	There is clear consensus that Sputnik News is generally unreliable. Sputnik is considered a Russian propaganda outlet that engages in bias and disinformation, with some editors considering it less reliable than Breitbart News. Some editors consider Sputnik a reliable source for official Russian government statements and positions. See also: RIA Novosti, whose international edition was replaced by Sputnik.	1
Stack Exchange (Stack Overflow, MathOverflow, Ask Ubuntu)		1 2 A	2018	Stack Exchange is a network of Q&A sites, including Stack Overflow, MathOverflow, and Ask Ubuntu. As an Internet forum, it is a self-published source that incorporates user-generated content, and is considered generally unreliable.	1   2   3   4   5   6
The Sun (UK) (The Sun on Sunday, The Irish Sun, The Scottish Sun)		2019 +13	2020	The Sun was deprecated in the 2019 RfC. There is consensus that The Sun is generally unreliable. References from The Sun are actively discouraged from being used in any article and they should not be used for determining the notability of any subject. The RfC does not override WP:ABOUTSELF, which allows the use of The Sun for uncontroversial self-descriptions. Some editors consider The Sun usable for uncontroversial sports reporting, although more reliable sources are recommended.	1   2   3   4
Taki's Magazine (Takimag, Taki's Top Drawer)		2019 1	2019	Taki's Magazine was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that it is an unreliable opinion magazine that should be avoided outside of very limited exceptions (e.g. WP:ABOUTSELF).	1
TASS (ТАСС, ITAR-TASS, Telegraph Agency of the Soviet Union)		2019	2019	In the 2019 RfC, editors argued that the reliability of TASS varies based on the subject matter. Editors consider TASS fairly reliable for statements of fact as stated by the Russian government, but also agree that there are deficiencies in the reliability of TASS's reporting on other issues.	1   2
TechCrunch		1 2 3 4 5	2018	Careful consideration should be given to whether a piece is written by staff or as a part of their blog, as well as whether the piece/writer may have a conflict of interest, and to what extent they rely on public relations material from their subject for their writing. TechCrunch may be useful for satisfying verifiability, but may be less useful for purpose of determining notability.	1
Telesur		2019 1 2	2019	Telesur was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the TV channel is a Bolivarian propaganda outlet. Many editors state that Telesur publishes false information. As a state-owned media network in a country with low press freedom, Telesur may be a primary source for the viewpoint of the Venezuelan government, although due weight should be considered. Telesur is biased or opinionated, and its statements should be attributed.	1   2
TheWrap		1 2	2017	As an industry trade publication, there is consensus that TheWrap is a good source for entertainment news and media analysis. There is no consensus regarding the reliability of TheWrap's articles on other topics.	1
ThinkProgress		2013 1	2013	Discussions of ThinkProgress are dated, with the most recent in 2013. Circumstances may have changed. Some consider ThinkProgress a form of WP:NEWSBLOG, and reliable for attributed statements of opinion. Others argue that ThinkProgress is generally reliable under WP:NEWSORG, albeit with due consideration for their political leanings. ThinkProgress is generally considered a partisan source for the purposes of US politics.	1
Time		1 2 3 4 5	2019	There is consensus that Time is generally reliable. Time's magazine blogs, including Techland, should be handled with the appropriate policy. Refer to WP:NEWSORG for guidance on op-eds, which should only be used with attribution.	1
The Times (The Sunday Times, The Times of London)		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A	2015	The Times, including its sister paper The Sunday Times, is considered generally reliable.	1   2   3
TMZ		13	2016	There is no consensus on the reliability of TMZ. Although TMZ is cited by reliable sources, most editors consider TMZ a low-quality source and prefer more reliable sources when available. Because TMZ frequently publishes articles on rumors and speculation without named authors, it is recommended to attribute statements from TMZ. When TMZ is the only source for a piece of information, consider whether the information constitutes due or undue weight, especially when the subject is a living person.	1
TorrentFreak (TF)		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8	2019	Most editors consider TorrentFreak generally reliable on topics involving file sharing. Editors note references to the website in mainstream media. The source may or may not be reliable for other topics.	1
Townhall		1 2	2010	As of 2010, a few editors commented that opinion pieces in Townhall are reliable as a source for the opinion of the author of the individual piece, although they may not be reliable for unattributed statements of fact, and context will dictate whether the opinion of the author as such, meets the standard of WP:DUEWEIGHT.	1
TRT World		2019	2019	Consensus exists that TRT World is reliable for statements regarding the official views of the Turkish government but not reliable for subjects with which the Turkish government could be construed to have a conflict of interest. For other miscellaneous cases, it shall be assumed to be reliable enough.	1
The Truth About Guns (TTAG)		1 2 3	2019	The Truth About Guns is a group blog. There is consensus that TTAG does not have a strong reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. TTAG has promoted conspiracy theories, and does not clearly label its sponsored content. Editors agree that TTAG is biased or opinionated. Opinions in TTAG are likely to constitute undue weight.	1
Tunefind		1 2	2019	Tunefind is almost entirely composed of user-generated content, and is a self-published source.	1
TV Guide		1 2	2012	TV Guide is considered generally reliable for television-related topics. Some editors consider TV Guide a primary source for air dates.	1   2
TV Tropes		1 2	2016	TV Tropes is considered generally unreliable because it is an open wiki, which is a type of self-published source.	1
Twitter		35	2019	Twitter is a social network. As a self-published source, it is considered generally unreliable and should be avoided unless the author is a subject-matter expert or the tweet is used for an uncontroversial self-description. In most cases, Twitter accounts should only be cited if they are verified accounts or if the user's identity is confirmed in some way. Tweets that are not covered by reliable sources are likely to constitute undue weight. Twitter should never be used for third-party claims related to living persons.	1
Urban Dictionary		1 2	2009	Urban Dictionary is considered generally unreliable, because it consists solely of user-generated content.	1
Us Weekly		1 2 3 4 5	2018	There is no consensus on the reliability of Us Weekly. It is often considered less reliable than People magazine.	1
USA Today		1 2 3 4 A	2018	There is consensus that USA Today is generally reliable. Editors note the publication's robust editorial process and its centrist alignment.	1
Vanity Fair		1 2	2019	Vanity Fair is considered generally reliable for popular culture.	1
Variety		1 2 3 4 5	2016	As an entertainment trade magazine, Variety is considered a reliable source in its field.	1
VDARE		2018 1	2019	VDARE was deprecated in the 2018 RfC. Editors agree that it is generally unusable as a source, although there may be rare exceptions such as in identifying its writers in an about-self fashion. Such limited instances will only be under careful and guided ("filtered") discretion.	1
Venezuelanalysis		2019 1 A B	2019	There is consensus that Venezuelanalysis is generally unreliable. Some editors consider Venezuelanalysis a Bolivarian propaganda outlet, and most editors question its accuracy. Almost all editors describe the site as biased or opinionated, so its claims should be attributed.	1
VentureBeat		1 2	2011	VentureBeat is considered generally reliable for business- and technology-related articles.	1
The Verge		2018 1	2019	There is broad consensus that The Verge is a reliable source for use in articles relating to technology, science, and automobiles. Some editors question the quality of The Verge's instructional content on computer hardware.	1
Veterans Today		2019  2019 1 2	2019	Due to persistent abuse, Veterans Today is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. Veterans Today was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed unanimous consensus that the site publishes fake news and antisemitic conspiracy theories. The use of Veterans Today as a reference should be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. Veterans Today should not be used for determining notability, or used as a secondary source in articles.	1
VGChartz		2019 A B C D E F G H I	2019	In the 2019 RfC, editors unanimously agreed that VGChartz is generally unreliable. The site consists mainly of news articles that qualify as 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. If other reliable sources publish video game sales data for certain regions (usually The NPD Group, Chart-Track, and/or Media Create), it is strongly advised that editors cite those sources instead.	1
Vice Media (Garage, i-D, Refinery29, Vice, Vice News)		1 2 3 4 5 6	2019	There is no consensus on the reliability of Vice Media publications.	1   2
Vogue		1 2 3 4	2018	Vogue is considered generally reliable. Potentially contentious statements made by Vogue interview subjects can be attributed to the individual.	1
Vox (Recode)		1 2 3	2017	Vox is considered generally reliable.	1
The Wall Street Journal (WSJ)		1 2 3 4 5	2019	Most editors consider The Wall Street Journal generally reliable for news. Use WP:NEWSBLOG to evaluate the newspaper's blogs, including Washington Wire. Use WP:RSOPINION for opinion pieces.	1
Washington Examiner		1 2 3 4 5 6 7	2020	There is no consensus on the reliability of the Washington Examiner, but there is consensus that it should not be used to substantiate exceptional claims. Almost all editors consider the Washington Examiner a partisan source and believe that statements from this publication should be attributed. The Washington Examiner publishes opinion columns, which should be handled with the appropriate guideline.	1
The Washington Post (WaPo)		13	2019	Most editors consider The Washington Post generally reliable. Some editors note that WP:NEWSBLOG should be used to evaluate blog posts on The Washington Post's website.	1
The Washington Times		1 2 3	2019	There is consensus that The Washington Times is marginally reliable, and should be avoided when more reliable sources are available. The Washington Times is considered partisan for US politics, especially with regard to climate change and US race relations.	1
The Weekly Standard		1 2 3	2014	The Weekly Standard is considered generally reliable, but much of their published content is opinion and should be attributed as such. Most editors say this magazine is a partisan source.	1
The Western Journal (Western Journalism)		2019 1	2019	In the 2019 RfC, there was consensus that The Western Journal is generally unreliable, but no consensus on whether The Western Journal should be deprecated. The publication's syndicated content should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher.	1
Who's Who (UK)		1 2 3	2019	There is no consensus on the reliability of Who's Who UK. It is a reference work with information mainly collected from the people concerned. Editors are divided on whether sufficient editorial control exists, and whether it is an independent source. It is generally considered more reliable than Marquis Who's Who, which is published in the United States. See also: Marquis Who's Who.	1
WhoSampled		1 2	2016	WhoSampled is almost entirely composed of user-generated content, and is a self-published source.	1
Wikidata		2013 2018 1 2	2018	Wikidata is largely user-generated, and articles should not directly cite Wikidata as a source (just as it would be inappropriate to cite other Wikipedias' articles as sources). See also: Wikidata transcluded statements.	1
Wikidata transcluded statements		2013 2018 1 2	2018	Uniquely among WMF sites, Wikidata's statements can be directly transcluded into articles; this is usually done to provide external links or infobox data. For example, more than two million external links from Wikidata are shown through the {{Authority control}} template. There has been controversy over the use of Wikidata in the English Wikipedia due to its infancy, its vandalism issues and its sourcing. While there is no consensus on whether information from Wikidata should be used at all, there is general agreement that any Wikidata statements transcluded need to be just as – or more – reliable compared to Wikipedia content. As such, Module:WikidataIB and some related modules and templates filter unsourced Wikidata statements by default; however, other modules and templates, such as Module:Wikidata, do not. See also: Wikidata (direct citations).	—
WikiLeaks		12	2018	WikiLeaks is a repository of primary source documents leaked by anonymous sources. Most editors believe that documents from WikiLeaks fail the verifiability policy, because WikiLeaks does not adequately authenticate them, and there are concerns regarding whether the documents are genuine or tampered. It may be appropriate to cite a document from WikiLeaks as a primary source, but only if it is discussed by a reliable source. However, linking to material that violates copyright is prohibited by WP:COPYLINK.	1
Wikinews		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8	2012	Most editors believe that Wikinews articles do not meet Wikipedia's verifiability standards. As Wikinews does not enforce a strong editorial policy, many editors consider the site equivalent to a self-published source, which is generally unreliable.	1
Wikipedia		15	2018	Wikipedia is not a reliable source because open wikis are self-published sources. This includes articles, non-article pages, The Signpost, non-English Wikipedias, Wikipedia Books, and Wikipedia mirrors; see WP:CIRCULAR for guidance. Occasionally, inexperienced editors may unintentionally cite the Wikipedia article about a publication instead of the publication itself; in these cases, fix the citation instead of removing it. Although citing Wikipedia as a source is against policy, content can be copied between articles with proper attribution; see WP:COPYWITHIN for instructions.	1
Wired (Wired UK)		10	2018	Wired magazine is considered generally reliable for science and technology.	1   2
WordPress.com		13	2018	WordPress.com is a blog hosting service that runs on the WordPress software. As a self-published source, it is considered generally unreliable and should be avoided unless the author is a subject-matter expert or the blog is used for uncontroversial self-descriptions. WordPress.com should never be used for claims related to living persons; this includes interviews, as even those cannot be authenticated.	1
WorldNetDaily (WND)		2018 +16	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 conspiracy theories. Most editors consider WorldNetDaily a partisan source. WorldNetDaily's syndicated content should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher, and the citation should preferably point to the original publisher.	1   2
YouTube		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9	2019	Most videos on YouTube are anonymous, self-published, and unverifiable, and should not be used at all. Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability. However, many YouTube videos from unofficial accounts are copyright violations and should not be linked from Wikipedia, according to WP:COPYLINK. See also WP:YOUTUBE and WP:VIDEOLINK.	1
ZDNet		1 2 3 4 5 6 7	2018	ZDNet is considered generally reliable for technology-related articles.	1
Zero Hedge		1 2 3	2019	Zero Hedge is considered generally unreliable due to its propagation of conspiracy theories. It is a self-published blog that is biased or opinionated.	1
ZoomInfo		2020 1 2	2020	Due to persistent abuse, ZoomInfo is currently on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used.	1
Legend Generally reliable in its areas of expertise: Editors show consensus that the source is reliable in most cases on subject matters in its areas of expertise. The source has a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and error-correction, often in the form of a strong editorial team. It will normally still be necessary to analyze how much weight to give the source and how to describe its statements. Arguments to exclude such a source entirely must be strong and convincing: e.g. the material is contradicted by more authoritative sources, it is outside the source's accepted areas of expertise (a well-established news organization is normally reliable for politics but not for philosophy), a specific subcategory of the source is less reliable (such as opinion pieces in a newspaper), the source is making an exceptional claim, or a higher standard of sourcing is required (WP:MEDRS, WP:BLP) for the statement in question. No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply: The source is marginally reliable (i.e. neither generally reliable nor generally unreliable), and may be usable depending on context. Editors may not have been able to agree on whether the source is appropriate, or may have agreed that it is only reliable in certain circumstances. It may be necessary to evaluate each use of the source on a case-by-case basis while accounting for specific factors unique to the source in question. Carefully review the Summary column of the table for details on the status of the source and the factors that should be considered. Generally unreliable: Editors show consensus that the source is questionable in most cases. The source may lack an editorial team, have a poor reputation for fact-checking, fail to correct errors, be self-published, or present user-generated content. Outside exceptional circumstances, the source should normally not be used, and it should never be used for information about a living person. Even in cases where the source may be valid, it is usually better to find a more reliable source instead. If no such source exists, that may suggest that the information is inaccurate. The source may still be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions, and self-published or user-generated content authored by established subject-matter experts is also acceptable. Deprecated: There is community consensus from a request for comment to deprecate the source. The source is considered generally unreliable, and use of the source is generally prohibited. Despite this, the source may be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions, although reliable secondary sources are still preferred. An edit filter, 869 (hist · log), may be in place to warn editors who attempt to cite the source as a reference in articles. The warning message can be dismissed. Edits that trigger the filter are tagged. Blacklisted: Due to persistent abuse, usually in the form of external link spamming, the source is on the spam blacklist or the Wikimedia global spam blacklist. External links to this source are blocked, unless an exception is made for a specific link in the spam whitelist. Request for comment: The linked discussion is an uninterrupted request for comment on the reliable sources noticeboard or another centralized venue suitable for determining the source's reliability. The closing statement of any RfC that is not clearly outdated should normally be considered authoritative and can only be overturned by a newer RfC. Stale discussions: The source has not been discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard for four calendar years, and the consensus may have changed since the most recent discussion. However, sources that are considered generally unreliable for being self-published or presenting user-generated content are excluded. A change in consensus resulting from changes in the source itself does not apply to publications of the source from before the changes in question. Additionally, while it may be prudent to review these sources before using them, editors should generally assume that the source's previous status is still in effect if there is no reason to believe that the circumstances have changed. Discussion in progress: The source is currently being discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard. Italic numbers represent active discussions (all discussions that are not closed or archived) on the reliable sources noticeboard. Letters represent discussions outside of the reliable sources noticeboard.

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, https://euvsdisinfo.eu) 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.

• 112.ua  
• dan-news.info  
• lenta.ru  
• news-front.info  
• rusdialog.ru  
• southfront.org  
• topwar.ru  
• ukraina.ru  
• veteranstoday.com  
• veteransnewsnow.com  

See also

• External links/Perennial websites, a list of websites used as external links
• Fake news websites, a list of websites that intentionally publish hoaxes
• Neutrality of sources, an essay on the use of reliable, but non-neutral, sources
• New page patrol source guide, a list of sources organized by reliability, region, and topic
• Newspaper of record, newspapers whose editorial and news-gathering functions are considered authoritative
• Potentially unreliable sources, a list of questionable sources
• Satirical news websites, a list of websites that publish humorous fake news stories
• The Wikipedia CiteWatch, a bot-compiled list of potentially problematic sources, ranked by frequency of use
• WikiProject Albums/Sources, a list of sources about music
• WikiProject Video games/Sources, a list of sources about video games
• {{RSP entry}}
• {{Deprecated inline}}
• Category:All articles with deprecated sources

External links

• Meta:Cite Unseen, Cite Unseen is a user script that helps readers quickly evaluate the sources used in a given English Wikipedia article,
• Google custom search of generally reliable sources listed on this page
• Google custom search for generally reliable sources for video games