Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The reliability of a source will greatly affect 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 attempts to summarize prior consensus and consolidate links to the most in-depth and recent discussions from the reliable sources noticeboard. 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 detailed information on a source and its use. Consensus can change, and if more recent discussions considering new evidence or argument reaches a different consensus, this list should be updated to reflect those changes.

Reliability is generally an inquiry that takes place pursuant to the verifiability policy. 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[edit]

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 circle of competence, 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 others may be merely opinion pieces, that represent mainly the personal views of the author, and depend on their personal reliability as a source.

Consider also the weight of the claim you are supporting, which will greatly affect the reliability of the source needed, with mundane uncontroversial details among the lowest burden of proof, and medical content or that related to biographies of living persons among the highest.

When in doubt, defer to the discussions linked to here, rather than to this list itself as a guide, as they will offer the greatest context about context, how or why a source should be used, and what may or may not be problematic.

How to improve this list[edit]

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 at the reliable source noticeboard.

Before doing so, please thoroughly familiarize yourself with content of previous discussions, and particularly the reasoning why a 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.

Sources[edit]

Source Status (legend) Discussions Uses
List Last Summary
Amazon.com
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 4 5 2017 User reviews on Amazon.com are anonymous, self-published, and unverifiable, and should not be used at all. Amazon.com is a reliable source for basic information about a work (such as release date, ISBN, etc.), although it is unnecessary to cite Amazon.com when the work itself may serve as a source for that information (e.g., authors' names and ISBNs). Future release dates may be unreliable. uses
Ancestry.com
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 4 2015 Ancestry.com hosts a huge database of primary source documents including marriage and census records. Some of these sources may be usable in certain circumstances, but secondary sources, where available, are usually preferred. Ancestry.com also hosts a huge amount of user-submitted content, none of which is reliable. uses
Ars Technica
Generally reliable
1 2 Discussions regarding this source are stale, and consensus may have changed. 2012 Ars Technica is considered a generally reliable source for science- and technology-related articles. uses
Ballotpedia
No consensus
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] uses
Breitbart News
Generally unreliable
Request for comment 2018

1 2 3

2018 The site has published a number of falsehoods, conspiracy theories,[7] and intentionally misleading stories.[10] There is 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 source when attributing opinion/viewpoint/commentary. Due to persistent abuse, Breitbart News is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist. uses
Business Insider
No consensus
1 2 3 4 5 6 2015 There is no consensus on the reliability of Business Insider. In 2015, Business Insider's disclaimer stated: "You should be skeptical of any information on Business Insider, because it may be wrong."[11] The site's syndicated content, which may not be clearly marked, should be evaluated by the reliability of its authors. uses
BuzzFeed
No consensus
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.[12] BuzzFeed may use A/B testing for new articles, which may cause article content to change.[13] BuzzFeed operates a separate news division, BuzzFeed News, which has higher editorial standards and is now hosted on a different website. See also the entry for BuzzFeed News. uses
BuzzFeed News
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2018 There is consensus that BuzzFeed News is a generally reliable source. BuzzFeed News now operates separately from BuzzFeed, and most news content originally hosted on BuzzFeed was moved to the BuzzFeed News website in 2018.[14] The site's opinion pieces should be handled with WP:RSOPINION. See also the entry for BuzzFeed. uses
CelebrityNetWorth
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2018 There is consensus that CelebrityNetWorth is a generally unreliable source. CelebrityNetWorth does not disclose its methodology, and its accuracy has been criticized by The New York Times.[15] uses
CounterPunch
No consensus
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 properly attributed. uses
The Daily Beast
No consensus
1 2 2018 Past discussions regarding The Daily Beast are lacking in depth. Multiple users have expressed the opinion that it is generally reliable, citing a history of editorial oversight and the leadership of those such as Tina Brown. However, it was also described as "largely an opinion piece aggregator", for which special care must be taken for use in supporting controversial statements of fact related to biographies of living persons. uses
The Daily Caller
No consensus
Request for comment 2018

1 2 3 4 5

2018 A number of 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 properly. Earlier discussion leaned more toward consideration of The Daily Caller as a reliable source, while later discussion leaned more toward unreliability. The RfC in 2018 was withdrawn. uses
Daily Express
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 2018 The Daily Express is a tabloid with a number of similarities to the Daily Mail. uses
Daily Kos
No consensus
1 2 2017 There is no consensus about the reliability of the Daily Kos. Some content published on its website is user-submitted. uses
Daily Mail
Generally unreliable
Request for comment 2017

+32[a]

2018 The Daily Mail (including its online version, dailymail.co.uk) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be 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. uses
Daily Mirror
No consensus
1 2 3 2018 There is no consensus about the reliability of the Daily Mirror. Some editors criticize the tabloid for gossip and sensationalism, while others see it favourably in comparison to the Daily Mail or The Sun. uses
Discogs
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 4 2018 The content on Discogs is user-submitted, and is therefore not considered a reliable source.[16] uses
The Economist
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 2018 Most editors consider The Economist a generally reliable source. The Economist publishes magazine blogs and opinion pieces, which should be handled with the respective guidelines. uses
The Electronic Intifada (EI)
No consensus
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2018 There is no consensus regarding the reliability of The Electronic Intifada. Some editors noted that the source has been cited by generally reliable publications, but other editors questioned the source's reputation for fact-checking. Almost all editors consider The Electronic Intifada a biased and opinionated source, so any use should be attributed. uses
Famous Birthdays
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 4 2018 There is consensus that Famous Birthdays is a generally unreliable source. Famous Birthdays does not provide sources for its content, and does not claim to have an editorial team or perform fact-checking. uses
Find a Grave
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 4 2016 The content on Find a Grave is user-submitted, and is therefore not considered a reliable source.[17] 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. uses
Forbes
Generally reliable
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 the entry for Forbes.com contributors. uses
Forbes.com contributors
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2018 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 opinion pieces or self-published sources. Check the byline to determine whether an article is written by "Forbes Staff" or a "Contributor". See also the entry for Forbes. uses
Fox News
Generally reliable
Request for comment 2010 Request for comment 2018 Request for comment 2018

+10[b]

2018 The first RfC in 2010 concluded: "Consensus is that while Fox may not always be reliable it is a Reliable Source", and pointed to the WP:NEWSORG guideline. The second RfC was withdrawn, and the third RfC was closed without extended discussion. 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 properly attribute statements of opinion. uses
Goodreads
Generally unreliable
1 2 2018 Goodreads is a social cataloging site comprised of user-generated content. As a self-published source, Goodreads is considered generally unreliable. uses
The Guardian (The Manchester Guardian, The Observer)
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 2016 There is consensus that The Guardian is a generally reliable source. Some editors believe The Guardian is a biased or opinionated source for politics. See also the entry for The Guardian blogs. uses
The Guardian blogs
No consensus
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2016 Most editors assert 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 entry for The Guardian. uses
Hope not Hate (Searchlight)
No consensus
Request for comment 2018

1 2 3 4

2018 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 any use should be attributed. uses
HuffPost (The Huffington Post)
Generally reliable
+15[c] 2018 HuffPost is considered a generally reliable source. Some editors believe the site reports with a political slant, which makes it a biased or opinionated source. HuffPost's syndicated content should be evaluated by the reliability of its original authors. See also the entry for HuffPost contributors. uses
HuffPost contributors
Generally unreliable
+17[d] 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 opinion pieces or self-published sources. In 2018, HuffPost discontinued its contributor platform, but old contributor articles are still online.[18] 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 the entry for HuffPost. uses
IMDb (Internet Movie Database)
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2015 The content on IMDb is user-submitted, and the site is therefore considered unreliable by the majority of editors. Some have argued that certain content on the site is reviewed by staff, although there is no broad agreement as to whether this constitutes bona fide fact checking, or what portions of the site, if any, should be considered reliable. 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 also WP:ELPEREN). uses
Independent Journal Review
No consensus
1 2 2018 There is no consensus about the reliability of the Independent Journal Review. uses
InfoWars
Generally unreliable
Request for comment 2018

1

2018 InfoWars is a conspiracy theorist and fake news website.[31] It is a generally unreliable source. 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. InfoWars is on the Wikimedia global spam blacklist. uses
Los Angeles Times (LA Times, L.A. Times)
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 5 6 2016 Most editors consider Los Angeles Times a generally reliable source. Refer to WP:NEWSBLOG for the newspaper's blog. uses
Media Matters for America
No consensus
Request for comment 2010

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

2018 There is no consensus about the reliability of Media Matters for America. As a biased or opinionated source, their statements should be properly attributed. uses
Media Research Center (Newsbusters)
No consensus
Request for comment 2010

1 2 3

2017 There is no consensus about the reliability of Media Research Center publications, including Newsbusters. As a biased or opinionated source, their statements should be properly attributed. uses
New York Daily News (NY Daily News, Illustrated Daily News)
No consensus
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. uses
New York Post (NY Post, New York Evening Post)
No consensus
1 2 3 2015 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. uses
The New York Times (The NYT)
Generally reliable
Request for comment 2018

+28[e]

2018 Most editors consider The New York Times a generally reliable source. 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. uses
Newsmax
No consensus
1 2 Discussions regarding this source are stale, and consensus may have changed. 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. uses
Occupy Democrats
Generally unreliable
Request for comment 2018 2018 There is a 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 for attributing opinions, viewpoints, and the like. uses
PolitiFact
Generally reliable
Request for comment 2016 2016 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. uses
PopCrush
No consensus
1 2

A

2018 While the second discussion linked (from WT:ALBUMS) indicates that PopCrush might not have editorial oversight and would not be RS under that criterion, it is not clear whether this is actually just because their website is not maintained properly. The discussion does indicate that their interviews can be used as sources regardless of this. The third link (no replies; there have been no discussions at WP:RS/N since 2012) indicates that PopCrush should be considered reliable due to the user's knowledge of the parent company. The PopCrush YouTube channel appears to be professionally produced, although most information there can be found in other sources. uses
Press TV
No consensus
1 2 3 4 2015 There is no consensus about the reliability of Press TV. As a biased or opinionated source, its statements should be properly attributed. Like other state-run media in countries with low press freedom, it may be reliable for uncontroversial statements of fact, or for describing the viewpoint of the Iranian government. Press TV is particularly known for promoting anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, including Holocaust denial.[32] uses
Quackwatch
No consensus
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

A B

Discussions regarding this source are stale, and consensus may have changed. 2013 Quackwatch is a self-published source written by a subject-matter expert. Many editors believe uses of Quackwatch should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and some editors say its statements should be attributed. A 2007 Arbitration Committee finding describes Quackwatch as a "partisan site". As it is a tertiary source, 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. uses
Rate Your Music (RYM, Sonemic, Cinemos, Glitchwave)
Generally unreliable
1

A

2016 The content on Rate Your Music is user-submitted, and is therefore not considered a reliable source. uses
RT (Russia Today)
No consensus
1 2 3 4 5 2017 There is no consensus about 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,[36] including the promotion of conspiracy theories.[41] It is not generally reliable for topics that are controversial or related to international politics. The only RSN discussion that was formally closed (the third link to the left) discussed whether it was acceptable in more general circumstances and found no consensus.[42] uses
Salon
No consensus
1 2 3 2018 There is no consensus about the reliability of Salon. It is generally regarded as an opinion source. uses
The Skeptic's Dictionary
Generally reliable
1 2 3 Discussions regarding this source are stale, and consensus may have changed. 2008 The Skeptic's Dictionary is generally considered a reliable source. 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. uses
Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 2018 The Southern Poverty Law Center is generally considered a reliable source on far-right politics. As an advocacy group, the Southern Poverty Law Center is a biased and opinionated source. The organization's views, especially when labeling hate groups, should be properly attributed per WP:RSOPINION. uses
The Sun
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2017 Editors consider The Sun a sensationalist tabloid, and often compare the publication unfavorably to the Daily Mail. uses
TechCrunch
No consensus
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 WP:V, but may be less useful for purpose of determining WP:N. uses
TheBlaze (The Blaze)
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 2018 TheBlaze is considered generally unreliable for facts. In some cases, it may be usable for attributed opinions. uses
TheWrap (The Wrap)
Generally reliable
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. uses
ThinkProgress
No consensus
Request for comment 2013

1

Discussions regarding this source are stale, and consensus may have changed. 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 a generally reliable source under WP:NEWSORG, albeit with due consideration for their political leanings. ThinkProgress may be considered a partisan source for the purposes of US politics. uses
TMZ
No consensus
1 2 3 4 2015 There is no consensus about the reliability of TMZ. uses
Townhall
No consensus
1 2 Discussions regarding this source are stale, and consensus may have changed. 2010 Discussions regarding Townhall are dated, with the most recent occurring in 2010. Circumstances may have changed, but editors at the time indicated 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. Reprinting of otherwise reliable sources, such as stories from the Associated Press were considered reliable, but may be better sourced to the AP directly, rather than to the reprinting in Townhall. uses
Venezuelanalysis
No consensus
1

A B

Discussions regarding this source are stale, and consensus may have changed. 2010 There is no consensus about the reliability of Venezuelanalysis. Though it can be useful for some news related to Venezuela, Venezuelanalysis states that "it is clearly pro-Bolivarian Revolution" and supports the Venezuelan government. Because of this, it is recommended that this source be properly attributed.[43] uses
The Verge
Generally reliable
Request for comment 2018 2018 There is broad consensus that The Verge is a reliable source for use in articles relating to technology, science, and automobiles. uses
The Wall Street Journal (WSJ)
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 2014 Most editors consider The Wall Street Journal a generally reliable source. Use WP:NEWSBLOG to evaluate the newspaper's blogs, including Washington Wire. Use WP:RSOPINION for opinion pieces. uses
The Washington Examiner
No consensus
1 2 3 4 2017 There is no consensus about the reliability of The Washington Examiner. uses
The Washington Post (WaPo)
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 2018 Most editors consider The Washington Post a generally reliable source. Some editors note that WP:NEWSBLOG should be used to evaluate blog posts on The Washington Post's website. uses
The Washington Times
No consensus
1 2 2017 There is a general consensus that if the The Washington Times is to be considered reliable, it is only marginally so, and is to be avoided when better sourcing is available. The Washington Times may be considered partisan with regard to US politics, with particular care given to issues of climate change and US race relations in general. However, the nature of The Washington Times with regard to US politics has been a contentious issue among editors, with both its proponents and detractors. uses
The Weekly Standard
Generally reliable
1 2 3 2014 The Weekly Standard is generally considered a reliable source, but much of their published content is opinion and should be attributed as such. Most editors assert this magazine is a partisan source. uses
WhoSampled
Generally unreliable
1 2 2016 WhoSampled is almost entirely composed of user-generated content.[44] As a self-published source, WhoSampled is considered generally unreliable. uses
Wikia (Fandom)
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 4 5 2016 Wikia (including Fandom) is considered generally unreliable because open wikis are self-published sources. Although citing Wikia as a source is against policy, copying Wikia 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. uses
Wikileaks
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 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 the external links guideline. uses
Wikinews
Generally unreliable
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. uses
Wikipedia
Generally unreliable
+15[f] 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. uses
WorldNetDaily (WND, World Net Daily)
Generally unreliable
Request for comment 2018

+16[g]

2018 There is consensus that WorldNetDaily is a generally unreliable source. The website has a poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and is known for promoting falsehoods and conspiracy theories.[54] Most editors consider WorldNetDaily a partisan source. uses
YouTube
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 4 5 2016 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 the external links guideline. See also WP:YOUTUBE and WP:VIDEOLINK. uses
  • float Generally reliable: Editors show consensus that the source is reliable in most cases. 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 area of competence (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 the source is primary in a context where secondary sources are necessary (WP:MEDRS, WP:BLP).
  • float No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply: The source is neither generally reliable nor generally unreliable. 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 review each use of the source on a case-by-case basis while accounting for specific factors unique to the source in question. It may be important to carefully review the Summary column of the table for details on the status of the source and what issues may need to be considered.
  • float 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 of specialized circumstances, the source should not normally 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.
  • Request for comment Request for comment: The linked discussion is a request for comment. 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.
  • float Stale discussions: The source has not been discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard for several 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, and a change in consensus resulting from changes in the source itself will 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.

See also[edit]

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ See also these discussions of the Daily Mail: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
  2. ^ See also these discussions of Fox News: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
  3. ^ See these discussions of HuffPost: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
  4. ^ See these discussions of HuffPost contributors: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
  5. ^ See also these discussions of The New York Times: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
  6. ^ See these discussions of Wikipedia: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
  7. ^ See also these discussions of WorldNetDaily: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

References[edit]

  1. ^ "Ballotpedia: About". Ballotpedia. Retrieved 2018-10-23.
  2. ^ *Jessica Roy (November 14, 2016). "What is the alt-right? A refresher course on Steve Bannon's fringe brand of conservatism". Los Angeles Times. ISSN 0458-3035. Under Bannon's leadership, Breitbart published ... articles regurgitating conspiracy theories about Hillary Clinton and her staff.
  3. ^ Lori Robertson (June 16, 2016). "Trump's ISIS Conspiracy Theory". FactCheck.org. Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. Donald Trump said a report on a conservative news site proved he was 'right' in suggesting President Obama supported terrorists. It doesn't. ... It's the kind of claim that we'd debunk in an article on viral conspiracy theories.
  4. ^ Louis Jacobson (June 15, 2016). "Donald Trump suggests Barack Obama supported ISIS, but that's a conspiracy theory". PolitiFact.
  5. ^ "Did 58 Scientific Papers Published in 2017 Say Global Warming is a Myth?". Snopes.com. Retrieved July 14, 2017.
  6. ^ Bhat, Prashanth (January 19, 2018). "Advertisements in the Age of Hyper-Partisan Media". The Trump Presidency, Journalism, and Democracy. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-351-39201-3 – via Google Books.
  7. ^ [2][3][4][5][6]
  8. ^ Viveca Novak (July 21, 2010). "Shirley Sherrod's Contextual Nightmare". FactCheck.org. Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. We've posted no shortage of pieces on political attacks that leave context on the cutting room floor to give the public a misleading impression. ... The latest victim of the missing context trick is U.S. Department of Agriculture employee Shirley Sherrod. ... a clip of several minutes of her roughly 45-minute speech surfaced on conservative Andrew Breitbart's website, where he labeled her remarks 'racist' and proof of "bigotry" on the part of the NAACP. ... It quickly became clear that the climax, not to mention the moral, of Sherrod's tale had been edited out of the version Breitbart posted.
  9. ^ II, Scott A. Eldridge (September 26, 2017). Online Journalism from the Periphery: Interloper Media and the Journalistic Field. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-37005-5 – via Google Books.
  10. ^ [8][9]
  11. ^ "Disclaimer". Business Insider. 2 October 2007. Archived from the original on 12 March 2015. Retrieved 2018-10-18.
  12. ^ Mitchell, Amy; Gottfried, Jeffrey; Kiley, Jocelyn; Matsa, Katerina Eva (21 October 2014). "Media Sources: Distinct Favorites Emerge on the Left and Right". Pew Research Center. Retrieved 2018-10-23.
  13. ^ Wang, Shan (15 September 2017). "BuzzFeed's strategy for getting content to do well on all platforms? Adaptation and a lot of A/B testing". Nieman Lab. Retrieved 2018-10-23.
  14. ^ Wang, Shan (18 July 2018). "The investigations and reporting of BuzzFeed News — *not* BuzzFeed — are now at their own BuzzFeedNews.com". Nieman Lab. Retrieved 2018-10-23.
  15. ^ Harris, Malcolm (2018-09-19). "The Big Secret of Celebrity Wealth (Is That No One Knows Anything)". The New York Times. Retrieved 2018-09-29.
  16. ^ "About us". Discogs.
  17. ^ "Contribute – Find A Grave". www.findagrave.com.
  18. ^ Ember, Sydney (18 January 2018). "HuffPost, Breaking From Its Roots, Ends Unpaid Contributions". Retrieved 2018-10-23.
  19. ^ Oppenheim, Maya (2018-03-04). "Dozens of leading brands pull ads from far right conspiracy site InfoWars' YouTube channel". Independent.
  20. ^ Hafner, Josh (2018-05-24). "Sandy Hook families suing Alex Jones aren't the only ones to threaten conspiracy theorist". USA Today.
  21. ^ Murphy, Paul P. (2018-03-03). "Advertisers flee InfoWars founder Alex Jones' YouTube channel". CNN tech.
  22. ^ Lima, Cristiano (2018-03-13). "InfoWars, Alex Jones sued for defamation over Charlottesville claims". Politico.
  23. ^ "Families of Sandy Hook victims could force Alex Jones to admit his outrageous lie". Boston Globe.
  24. ^ "Why Tommy Robinson Was Jailed, and Why U.S. Rightwingers Care". TIME.
  25. ^ "Republicans press social media giants on anti-conservative 'bias' that Dems call 'nonsense'". CBS19.
  26. ^ Shantz, Jeff (2016). Manufacturing Phobias: The Political Production of Fear in Theory and Practice. p. 231. ISBN 978-1-4426-2884-7.
  27. ^ Sandlin, Jennifer (2017). Paranoid Pedagogies: Education, Culture, and Paranoia. p. 170. ISBN 978-3-319-64764-7.
  28. ^ "Free Speech Systems LLC". Bloomberg L.P.
  29. ^ "Roger Stone, former Donald Trump adviser, lands InfoWars gig with Alex Jones". The Washington Times. December 31, 2017.
  30. ^ "The Lost Art of Privacy". National Review. December 15, 2017.
  31. ^ [19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30]
  32. ^ Anti-Defamation League (17 October 2013). "Iran's Press TV: Broadcasting Anti-Semitism to the English-Speaking World" (PDF). Retrieved 2018-08-08.
  33. ^ Julia Ioffe (October 2010). "What Is Russia Today?". Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved 2018-08-08.
  34. ^ Paul C, Matthews M (2016). "The Russian "Firehose of Falsehood" Propaganda Model".
  35. ^ *Bidder B (13 August 2013). "Russia Today: Putin's Weapon in the War of Images". Spiegel Online. Retrieved 2018-08-08.
  36. ^ [33][34][35]
  37. ^ Bidder B (13 August 2013). "Russia Today: Putin's Weapon in the War of Images". Spiegel Online. Retrieved 2018-08-08.
  38. ^ Rutenberg J (13 September 2017). "RT, Sputnik and Russia's New Theory of War". New York Times. Retrieved 2018-08-08.
  39. ^ Scherr S (August 2010). "Russian TV Channel Pushes 'Patriot' Conspiracy Theories". Southern Poverty Law Center. Retrieved 2018-08-08.
  40. ^ Altman A (22 July 2014). "Russian Television Under Spotlight After Malaysia Airlines Crash in Ukraine". Time. Retrieved 2018-08-08.
  41. ^ [37][38][39][40]
  42. ^ One 2012 RfC at the article talk page found that RT was generally reliable in these cases. However, this result occurred before most of the previously cited sources were published, and it was generally disregarded during the subsequent discussions.
  43. ^ "Tackling Institutions One By One: An Interview With Gregory Wilpert". the main success of Venezuelanalysis.com has been that it provides a left social movement perspective on the Bolivarian Revolution in the English language. It's a fairly rare perspective, in that it is clearly pro-Bolivarian Revolution.
  44. ^ "Frequently Asked Questions". WhoSampled. Retrieved 2018-10-16.
  45. ^ Bruno, Debra; Bruno, Debra (February 21, 2016). "There's the major media. And then there's the 'other' White House press corps" – via washingtonpost.com. Les Kinsolving, a reporter for the far-right World Net Daily, was a familiar White House gadfly from the days of the Nixon administration on.
  46. ^ Massing, Michael. "Un-American". Columbia Journalism Review. Far-right Web sites like World Net Daily and Newsmax.com floated all kinds of specious stories about Obama that quickly careened around the blogosphere and onto talk radio.
  47. ^ Burns, John F. (May 5, 2009). "Britain Identifies 16 Barred From Entering U.K." The New York Times. New York City, NY: Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr. Retrieved Mar 26, 2010. according to WorldNetDaily.com, a conservative Web site.
  48. ^ "Fact-checking President-elect Trump's news conference". Washington Post. Retrieved 2017-05-26. He frequently claimed that Obama had spent $2 million to cover this up — a number he plucked out of World Net Daily, which promotes conservative-leaning conspiracy theories.
  49. ^ "The highly reliable, definitely-not-crazy places where Donald Trump gets his news". Washington Post. Retrieved 2017-05-26. WND is a leader in preserving murder cover-up theories, publishing 'exclusive reports' linking the Clintons to a plot to kill their longtime friend.
  50. ^ CNN, Gregory Krieg. "Trump's supporters and their bloody words of war". CNN. Retrieved 2017-05-26. Writing in the right-wing site WorldNetDaily, Pat Buchanan...
  51. ^ "Our Politics Enables Donald Trump to Lie and Get Away With It". April 15, 2016. This isolates conservative news seekers to Fox News, conservative talk radio, Breitbart.com, or even websites further out on the fringe such as World Net Daily.
  52. ^ Michael Brendan, Dougherty. "Conservative Radio Host Says Andrew Breitbart Might Have Been Assassinated". Business Insider. Retrieved 2017-02-17. The report comes from WorldNetDaily, a right-wing website that periodically promotes conspiracy theories about Obama's birth certificate.
  53. ^ Selk, Avi. "In rumors around a DNC staffer's death, a whiff of a Clinton-era conspiracy theory". Washington Post. Retrieved 2017-05-17. One of Starr’s investigators had been “threatened to short-circuit the probe,” Joseph Farah wrote in 2003 on his website, WorldNetDaily.com, which would become an incubator for birther conspiracy theories in the Obama era.
  54. ^ [45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53]