Wikipedia:Deprecated sources: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:28, 30 May 2020

This is an information page.

It is not an encyclopedic article, nor one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines; rather, its purpose is to explain certain aspects of Wikipedia's norms, customs, technicalities, or practices. It may reflect differing levels of consensus and vetting.

Shortcuts

This page in a nutshell: The community has decided to exclude certain highly questionable sources from articles, except in special cases.

Deprecated sources are highly questionable sources that editors are discouraged from citing in articles, because they fail the reliable sources guideline in nearly all circumstances. These sources may be subject to restrictions, including an edit filter. Deprecation is a formalization that arises from Wikipedia’s normal processes for evaluating sources. It primarily exists so that we can save time by not repeatedly discussing or explaining the same issues, and to increase awareness among editors of the status of the sources in question. For example, if editors are unfamiliar with either the specific sources in question or the general sourcing requirements, they can be saved the experience of having their work undone later on. Deprecation can be proposed with a request for comment at the reliable sources noticeboard, and the restrictions are only applied if there is community consensus.^[1]

Since there are an endless number of poor sources, there are also an endless number of sources that would be deprecated if we bothered to have discussions on them. These sources have always been de facto deprecated as a normal result of our policies and guidelines that try to ensure that we use reputable sources. Of course, a discussion that results in deprecation may involve a change or clarification of editorial consensus (thus resulting in a change of current practice), but the only effect of deprecation itself is to explicitly codify the source’s pre-existing status, as already determined by Wikipedia’s sourcing requirements. It does not inherently change how they are evaluated under those requirements.

Deprecated sources should not be considered to be either unique or uniquely unreliable. They may be those that are most often cited by unaware editors, or those that come up in discussion the most often – for example, due to real-world controversy, borderline reliability, or a tendency to be promoted on-wiki despite a lack of reliability. Since there are many reasons that a source may be unreliable, the specific reasons for deprecation vary from case to case. The first source to be formally deprecated was the Daily Mail, which was determined by community consensus in a 2017 RfC to have a "reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication". This RfC became a landmark decision, and new deprecation proposals are usually based on language from its closing summary.

Deprecating a source is a more moderate measure than "banning" it. Deprecation is also different from blocking the source (blacklisting), which is generally done to address spam-related issues. There are currently 27 deprecated sources.

Effects of deprecation

Deprecated sources are restricted in three ways, most of which were discussed in the 2017 Daily Mail RfC:

The source is designated as generally unreliable.
- Citing the source as a reference is generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. Images and quotations should also be avoided, since they can be manipulated or fabricated. If the source contains material that cannot be found in more reliable sources, it may be valid to assume that the material in question is incorrect. The source may only be used when there is a demonstrable need to use it instead of other sources.
- The source is no longer used to determine notability.
Typically, the source is listed on User:XLinkBot/RevertList and User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList. XLinkBot automatically reverts links to the source that are added by unregistered users and accounts under seven days old. This behavior is subject to restrictions, which are described in the lists themselves.
Typically, an edit filter set to "warn" is implemented, which displays a message to editors having contributed more than 7 days and who are attempting to cite the source in an article, notifying them of the existing consensus and asking them if they want to proceed. At this point, the editor may choose to cancel the edit, or dismiss the warning and complete the edit.
- This measure is implemented through filter 869 (hist · log), which marks all edits that trigger the filter with the "use of deprecated (unreliable) source" tag.

Deprecated sources with few valid use cases may be blocked due to persistent abuse. This involves the url being added to the spam blacklist and/or the Wikimedia global spam blacklist. It is not necessary for a source to be "deprecated" to be blocked, nor are all "deprecated" sources blocked.

Acceptable uses of deprecated sources

Deprecation is not a "ban" on using the source, despite having been reported as such in the media.^[7] In particular, reliability always depends on the specific content being cited, and all sources are reliable in at least some circumstances and unreliable in at least some others. Citations to deprecated sources should not be removed indiscriminately, and each case should be reviewed separately.

The primary exception to deprecation is that deprecated sources can normally be cited as a primary source when the source itself is the subject of discussion, such as to describe its own viewpoint. The verifiability policy provides an additional exception: a questionable source may be used for information on itself, subject to the conditions in Wikipedia:Verifiability § Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves (WP:ABOUTSELF). Additional exceptions may be specific to individual sources: for example, the closure of the Daily Mail RfC referenced the possibility that it may have been more reliable historically. An external link to the source can be included on an article about the source. Editors are also expected to use common sense and act to improve the encyclopedia. If an exception applies, the source can be evaluated and used like any other. Deprecation does not change the application of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and the use of all sources continues to be governed by WP:RS and WP:V.

Deprecating a source is a weaker measure than blocking it, and the two terms are not comparable. Wikipedia's equivalent to blocking is blacklisting, which is an entirely separate mechanism, and websites are usually only blacklisted if they are involved in spam-related issues, such as external link spamming. Blacklisted sources are listed at the English Wikipedia spam blacklist and the Wikimedia global spam blacklist, with new proposals submitted at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. External links to blacklisted sources cannot be included in edits and editors will be shown an error message. In contrast, deprecated sources can be cited by editors as long as they are not on either of the spam blacklists.

How does a source become deprecated?

To start a discussion on deprecation, start a request for comment at the reliable sources noticeboard.^[1] Editors will then evaluate the source and determine whether there is a consensus for deprecation. However, if the source is not already de facto deprecated as current practice, or if the source has not already been discussed at length in the past, it may be a better idea to start a regular RSN discussion instead.

In general, a source that is proposed for deprecation should be either frequently used or frequently discussed. Additionally, in order to prevent instruction creep, sources that should be particularly obvious (for example, The Onion) are unlikely to be formally deprecated unless there are editors seriously arguing for their reliability. Similarly, the fact that there may be non-deprecated sources which are just as bad as (or even worse than) a source under consideration is not considered to be a valid argument against deprecation.^[8]

What sources are de facto deprecated?

Any source that fails the reliable sources guideline in nearly all circumstances. While we will never have an exhaustive list, most deprecation to date has focused on sources that promote known falsehoods, particularly debunked conspiracy theories. This does not have to be intentional and may be a result of factors such as poor fact checking or sensationalism. One might assume, for instance, that fake news websites are effectively deprecated, as are sources that promote pseudoscience or denialism. The pages on potentially unreliable sources and perennially discussed sources may also be helpful.

Currently deprecated sources

Shortcut

WP:DEPSOURCES

Since each source proposed for deprecation has to be discussed separately, we cannot formally deprecate all possible sources that deserve it. As described above, the fact that an unreliable source is listed here does not make it inherently different from an unreliable source that is not listed here.

Source	Date of deprecation	RfC	Auto-reverted	Edit-filtered	Black-listed	Notes	Uses
112 Ukraine	21 December 2019	2019			2020		1 2
Breitbart News	25 September 2018	2018			2018		1
Crunchbase	18 March 2019	2019	2019			Crunchbase is only listed on User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList, so citations to Crunchbase are only automatically reverted if they are in ref tags in addition to meeting the standard criteria. An edit filter is not implemented for Crunchbase in order to allow external links to the website.	1
The Daily Caller	13 February 2019	2019	2019	2019			1 2
Daily Mail (MailOnline)	8 February 2017	2017 2019 2020	2018	2017 2019		The Daily Mail was the first source to be deprecated on Wikipedia. The decision was challenged and upheld in the 2019 RfC. This deprecation also includes the newspaper's website, MailOnline. Editors note that the Daily Mail may have been more reliable historically.	1
The Epoch Times	6 December 2019	2019	2019	2020			1
The Gateway Pundit	21 November 2019	2019	2019	2020			1
The Grayzone	8 March 2020	2020	2020	2020			1
HispanTV	19 May 2019	2019	2019	2020			1 2
InfoWars (NewsWars)	30 August 2018	2018			2018 2018		1 2 3 4
Last.fm	23 February 2019	2019	2019	2020			1
Lenta.ru (12 March 2014–present)	21 December 2019	2019			2020	There is currently no consensus on the reliability of Lenta.ru prior to 12 March 2014.	1
LifeSiteNews (Campaign Life Coalition)	4 July 2019	2019	2019	2019			1
MintPress News	4 July 2019	2019	2019	2020			1
National Enquirer	17 March 2019	2019	2019			There is no consensus to implement an edit filter for the National Enquirer.	1
News of the World	4 December 2019	2019	2019	2020		Some editors consider News of the World to be reliable for film reviews.	1 2
NNDB (Notable Names Database)	23 February 2019	2019	2019	2020			1
Occupy Democrats	25 September 2018	2018	2018	2020			1
One America News Network (OANN)	21 December 2019	2019	2019	2020			1
Rate Your Music (RYM, Cinemos, Glitchwave, Sonemic)	23 February 2019	2019	2019	2020			1 2 3 4
The Sun (UK) (The Sun on Sunday, The Irish Sun, The Scottish Sun)	18 January 2019	2019	2019	2020		Some editors consider The Sun to be reliable for sports reporting.	1 2 3 4
RT (Russia Today)	27 May 2020	2020	2020	2020			1
Taki's Magazine	3 October 2019	2019	2019	2020			1
Telesur	31 March 2019	2019	2019	2020			1 2
VDARE	22 December 2018	2018	2019	2019			1
Veterans Today	21 December 2019	2019			2019		1
WorldNetDaily (WND)	11 December 2018	2018	2018	2019			1 2

Legend

Auto-reverted: The source is listed on User:XLinkBot/RevertList and User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList. XLinkBot automatically reverts links to the source that are added by unregistered users and accounts under seven days old. This behavior is subject to restrictions, which are described in the lists themselves. Refer to the Notes column for additional exceptions.
Edit-filtered: An edit filter, 869 (hist · log), is 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.

Notes

In a highly-attended 2020 discussion, there was consensus to deprecate OpIndia and Swarajya, but the discussion was not a request for comment.

References

^ ^a ^b Requests for comment are created using the {{rfc}} template; see WP:RFC for the technical instructions. A common approach to posing the RfC question can be seen in this example.
^ Kalev Leetaru (2 October 2017). "What Wikipedia's Daily Mail 'Ban' Tells Us About The Future Of Online Censorship". Forbes. Retrieved 25 December 2018.
^ Jasper Jackson (8 February 2017). "Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' source". The Guardian. Retrieved 21 November 2018.
^ Jon Sharman (9 February 2017). "Wikipedia bans Daily Mail because it's an 'unreliable source'". The Independent. Retrieved 21 November 2018.
^ Sebastian Anthony (10 February 2017). "Wikipedia bans Daily Mail for "poor fact checking, sensationalism, flat-out fabrication"". Ars Technica. Retrieved 21 November 2018.
^ Also see Daily Mail § Other criticisms.
^ ^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]
^ See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, as well as the formal closure of this RfC (quote: "That we use other trash-sources is never a good reason to oppose (for it can be effectively weaponised as a circular argument across discussions, to prevent deprecation of any source at all) and there is nothing prohibiting any interested editor from launching referendum-RFCs for those sources.")

[footnote1-1] Requests for comment are created using the {{rfc}} template; see WP:RFC for the technical instructions. A common approach to posing the RfC question can be seen in this example.

[2] Kalev Leetaru (2 October 2017). "What Wikipedia's Daily Mail 'Ban' Tells Us About The Future Of Online Censorship". Forbes. Retrieved 25 December 2018.

[3] Jasper Jackson (8 February 2017). "Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' source". The Guardian. Retrieved 21 November 2018.

[4] Jon Sharman (9 February 2017). "Wikipedia bans Daily Mail because it's an 'unreliable source'". The Independent. Retrieved 21 November 2018.

[5] Sebastian Anthony (10 February 2017). "Wikipedia bans Daily Mail for "poor fact checking, sensationalism, flat-out fabrication"". Ars Technica. Retrieved 21 November 2018.

[6] Also see Daily Mail § Other criticisms.

[7] [2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]

[8] See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, as well as the formal closure of this RfC (quote: "That we use other trash-sources is never a good reason to oppose (for it can be effectively weaponised as a circular argument across discussions, to prevent deprecation of any source at all) and there is nothing prohibiting any interested editor from launching referendum-RFCs for those sources.")

[1]

[7]

[8]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

@@ Line 27: / Line 27: @@
 The primary exception to deprecation is that deprecated sources can normally be cited as a [[WP:PRIMARY|primary source]] when the source itself is the subject of discussion, such as to describe its own viewpoint. The [[WP:V|verifiability policy]] provides an additional exception: a questionable source may be used for information on itself, subject to the conditions in {{sectionlink|Wikipedia:Verifiability|Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves}} ([[WP:ABOUTSELF]]). Additional exceptions may be specific to individual sources: for example, the closure of the Daily Mail RfC referenced the possibility that it may have been more reliable historically. An [[WP:EL|external link]] to the source can be included on an article about the source. Editors are also expected to use [[WP:COMMON|common sense]] and act to improve the encyclopedia. If an exception applies, the source can be evaluated and used like any other. Deprecation does not change the application of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and the use of ''all'' sources continues to be governed by [[WP:RS]] and [[WP:V]].
-Deprecating a source is a weaker measure than banning it, and the two terms are not comparable. Wikipedia's equivalent to banning is ''blacklisting'', which is an entirely separate mechanism, and websites are usually only blacklisted if they are involved in [[WP:SPAM|spam-related issues]], such as [[WP:LINKSPAM|external link spamming]]. Blacklisted sources are listed at the [[WP:SPB|English Wikipedia spam blacklist]] and the [[m:Spam_blacklist|Wikimedia global spam blacklist]], with new proposals submitted at [[MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist]]. External links to blacklisted sources cannot be included in edits and editors will be shown an error message. In contrast, deprecated sources can be cited by editors as long as they are not on either of the spam blacklists.
+Deprecating a source is a weaker measure than blocking it, and the two terms are not comparable. Wikipedia's equivalent to blocking is ''blacklisting'', which is an entirely separate mechanism, and websites are usually only blacklisted if they are involved in [[WP:SPAM|spam-related issues]], such as [[WP:LINKSPAM|external link spamming]]. Blacklisted sources are listed at the [[WP:SPB|English Wikipedia spam blacklist]] and the [[m:Spam_blacklist|Wikimedia global spam blacklist]], with new proposals submitted at [[MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist]]. External links to blacklisted sources cannot be included in edits and editors will be shown an error message. In contrast, deprecated sources can be cited by editors as long as they are not on either of the spam blacklists.
 ==How does a source become deprecated?==