Wikipedia: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 summarizes prior consensus and consolidates 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 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[edit]

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.

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. 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 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.

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 (RfC) at the reliable source noticeboard (RSN).

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.

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 RfC discussion on the source's reliability that took place on RSN. 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.

Sources[edit]

Source Status
(legend)
Discussions Uses}}
List Last Summary
Al Jazeera (Al Jazeera English, Aljazeera.com)
Generally reliable
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 assert 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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
AlterNet
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 4 2018 There is consensus that AlterNet is generally unreliable. Editors consider AlterNet a partisan source, and its statements should be properly 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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Amazon
Generally unreliable
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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
3 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
4 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
5 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
6 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
7 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
8 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
9 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
10 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
11 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
12 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
13 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
14 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
15 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
16 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Ancestry.com
Generally unreliable
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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Answers.com (WikiAnswers)
Generally unreliable
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; republished Wikipedia content is considered a circular source. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Ars Technica
Generally reliable
1 2 Discussions regarding this source are stale, and consensus may have changed.
2012
Ars Technica is considered generally reliable for science- and technology-related articles. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Associated Press (AP)
Generally reliable
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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
The Atlantic (The Atlantic Monthly)
Generally reliable
1 2 2018 The Atlantic is considered generally reliable. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
The A.V. Club
Generally reliable
1 2 3

A

Discussions regarding this source are stale, and consensus may have changed.
2014
The A.V. Club is considered generally reliable for film, music and TV reviews. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Baidu Baike
Generally unreliable
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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
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] 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation)
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2017 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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Bild
Generally unreliable
1 2 Discussions regarding this source are stale, and consensus may have changed.
2014
Bild is a tabloid that has been unfavourably compared to The Sun. A few editors consider the source to be usable in some cases. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Biography.com
No consensus
1 2 3 4 2018 There is no consensus on the reliability of Biography.com. Some editors consider the source to be 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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Blaze Media (BlazeTV, Conservative Review, CRTV, TheBlaze)
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 2018 Blaze Media (including TheBlaze) is considered generally unreliable for facts. In some cases, it may be usable for attributed opinions. In 2018, TheBlaze merged with Conservative Review (CRTV) to form Blaze Media.[2] 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Bloomberg (Bloomberg News, Bloomberg Businessweek)
Generally reliable
1 2 3 2018 Bloomberg publications, including Bloomberg News and Bloomberg Businessweek, are considered generally reliable. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Bloomberg profiles
No consensus
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 a consensus that these profiles should not be used to establish notability. Some editors consider these profiles to be akin to self-published sources. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Breitbart News
Blacklisted
Deprecated
Request for comment 2018

1 2 3

2018 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,[8] and intentionally misleading stories.[11] 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 opinion/viewpoint/commentary. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Business Insider (Insider, Markets Insider, Tech 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."[12] The site's syndicated content, which may not be clearly marked, should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
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.[13] BuzzFeed may use A/B testing for new articles, which may cause article content to change.[14] 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. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
BuzzFeed News
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Discussion in progress
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.[15] The site's opinion pieces should be handled with WP:RSOPINION. See also the entry for BuzzFeed. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Cato Institute
No consensus
1 2 2015 The Cato Institute is considered generally reliable for its opinion. Some editors consider the Cato Institute to be 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 to be a biased or opinionated source, so its uses should be attributed. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
CelebrityNetWorth
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2018 There is consensus that CelebrityNetWorth is generally unreliable. CelebrityNetWorth does not disclose its methodology, and its accuracy has been criticized by The New York Times.[16] 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
The Christian Science Monitor (CS Monitor)
Generally reliable
20[a] 2016 The Christian Science Monitor is considered generally reliable for news. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
CNET
Generally reliable
16[b] 2015 CNET is considered generally reliable for technology-related articles. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
CoinDesk
No consensus
Request for comment 2018

1 2 3

2018 There is no consensus on the reliability of CoinDesk. However, there is consensus that CoinDesk should not be used to establish notability for article topics. Be cautious when using CoinDesk to avoid adding promotional content into articles. 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.[17] 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Cosmopolitan
No consensus
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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
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. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Crunchbase
Generally unreliable
Request for comment 2019

1 2

Discussion in progress
2019
The majority of Crunchbase is user-generated content. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
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. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
The Daily Caller
Deprecated
Request for comment 2018 Request for comment 2019

1 2 3 4 5

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 properly attributed. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
The Daily Dot
Generally reliable
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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Daily Express
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 2018 The Daily Express is a tabloid with a number of similarities to the Daily Mail. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
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-generated and are thus considered unreliable. Some editors indicated that the Daily Kos is a partisan source for United States politics. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Daily Mail (MailOnline)
Deprecated
Request for comment 2017 Request for comment 2019

+35[c]

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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Daily Mirror
No consensus
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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Daily Star (United Kingdom)
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 4 2018 The Daily Star is a tabloid that is generally considered less reliable than the Daily Mail. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
The Daily Telegraph (The Telegraph)
Generally reliable
16[d] 2018 There is a consensus that The Daily Telegraph (also known as The Telegraph) is generally reliable. Some editors believe that The Daily Telegraph is a biased or opinionated source for politics. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Deadline Hollywood
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 5 6 2019 Deadline Hollywood is considered generally reliable for entertainment-related articles. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Democracy Now!
No consensus
1 2 3 4 5 Discussions regarding this source are stale, and consensus may have changed.
2013
There is no consensus on the reliability of Democracy Now!. Most editors consider Democracy Now! a partisan source whose statements should be properly attributed. Syndicated content published by Democracy Now! should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Deseret News
Generally reliable
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 properly 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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Discogs
Generally unreliable
Request for comment 2019

1 2 3 4

Discussion in progress
2019
The content on Discogs is user-generated, and is therefore not considered a reliable source.[18] 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Dotdash (About.com, The Balance, Lifewire, The Spruce, ThoughtCo, TripSavvy, Verywell)
No consensus
15[e] Discussions regarding this source are stale, and consensus may have changed.
2014
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; republished Wikipedia content is considered a circular source. In 2017, the About.com website became defunct and some of its content was moved to Dotdash's current website brands.[19][20] See also the entry for Investopedia.
1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
3 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
4 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
5 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
6 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
7 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
E! (E! News, E! Online, Entertainment Television)
No consensus
1 2 Discussions regarding this source are stale, and consensus may have changed.
2013
There is no consensus on the reliability of the E! television network, including its website E! Online. It is generally regarded as a usable source for celebrity news. Consider whether the information from this source constitutes due or undue weight, especially when the subject is a living person. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
The Economist
Generally reliable
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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
The Electronic Intifada (EI)
Generally unreliable
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 properly attributed. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Entertainment Weekly
Generally reliable
22[f] 2018 Entertainment Weekly is considered generally reliable for entertainment-related articles. There is no consensus on whether it is generally reliable for other topics. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Epoch Times
No consensus
1 2 3 4 5 2018 There is no consensus about the reliability of the Epoch Times. Most editors classify the Epoch Times as an advocacy group for the Falun Gong, and consider the publication a biased or opinionated source whose statements should be properly attributed. Some editors question the publication's suitability when assessing the notability of controversial issues, and caution not to provide undue weight to this source. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Evening Standard (London Evening Standard)
No consensus
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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR)
No consensus
Request for comment 2010

1 2 3 4 5

Discussions regarding this source are stale, and consensus may have changed.
2014
There is no consensus about 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 properly attributed and generally treated as opinions. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
FamilySearch
Generally unreliable
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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Famous Birthdays
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 4 2018 There is consensus that Famous Birthdays is generally unreliable. Famous Birthdays does not provide sources for its content, and does not claim to have an editorial team or perform fact-checking. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Financial Times
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2018 The Financial Times is considered generally reliable. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Find a Grave
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 4 2016 The content on Find a Grave is user-generated, and is therefore considered generally unreliable.[21] 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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Findmypast
Generally unreliable
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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
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. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Forbes.com contributors
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2019 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. 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. See also the entry for Forbes. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Fox News (news and website)
Generally reliable
Request for comment 2010 Request for comment 2018 Request for comment 2018

+11[g]

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 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. See also the entry for Fox News talk shows. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Fox News (talk shows)
No consensus
Request for comment 2010

1 2 3 4 5

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 properly attributed. See also the entry for Fox News. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Gawker
Generally unreliable
Request for comment 2019

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Discussion in progress
2019
Gawker is a defunct 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. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Geni.com
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 4 2018 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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Genius (Rap Genius)
No consensus
1 2 Discussion in progress
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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
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. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Google Maps (Google Street View)
No consensus
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 neither Google Maps data nor Google Street View pictures are publicly archived, and both are removed or replaced as soon as they are 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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
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 generally reliable. Some editors believe The Guardian is a biased or opinionated source for politics. See also the entry for The Guardian blogs. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
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. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Haaretz (Ḥadashot Ha'aretz)
Generally reliable
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 a biased or opinionated source. The publication's opinion pieces should be handled with the appropriate guideline. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
The Hill
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
The Hollywood Reporter (THR)
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 5 2018 There is a 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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
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 their statements should be properly attributed. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
HuffPost (The Huffington Post)
No consensus
15[h] 2018 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 a biased or opinionated source. HuffPost's syndicated content should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher. See also the entry for HuffPost contributors.
1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
3 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
4 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
5 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
6 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
7 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
8 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
9 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
10 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
11 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
12 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
13 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
14 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
15 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
16 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
HuffPost contributors
Generally unreliable
17[i] 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.[22] 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.
1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
3 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
4 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
5 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
6 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
7 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
8 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
9 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
10 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
11 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
12 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
13 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
14 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
15 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
16 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Idolator
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 5 2017 There is a 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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
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-generated, 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). 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
The Independent
Generally reliable
1 2 Discussions regarding this source are stale, and consensus may have changed.
2013
The Independent, a British newspaper, is considered a reliable source for non-specialist information. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Independent Journal Review
No consensus
1 2 3 2018 There is no consensus about 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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
InfoWars
Blacklisted
Deprecated
Request for comment 2018

1

2018 Due to persistent abuse, InfoWars is on both the spam blacklist and the Wikimedia global spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. InfoWars is a conspiracy theorist and fake news website.[35] InfoWars was deprecated in the 2018 RfC. 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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
International Business Times (IBTimes)
No consensus
1 2 3 4 5 2017 There is no consensus on the reliability of the International Business Times. Editors 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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Investopedia
No consensus
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 the entry for Dotdash. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association)
Generally reliable
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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Jezebel
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 2016 There is a 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 have asserted that Jezebel is a biased or opinionated source. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Know Your Meme
No consensus
1 2 3 4 Discussions regarding this source are stale, and consensus may have changed.
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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Last.fm
Generally unreliable
Request for comment 2019

1

Discussion in progress
2019
The content on Last.fm is user-generated, and is considered generally unreliable. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Los Angeles Times
Generally reliable
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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Marquis Who's Who (Who's Who in America)
Generally unreliable
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 to be 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. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
The Mary Sue
No consensus
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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Media Bias/Fact Check
Generally unreliable
1 2 2018 There is consensus that Media Bias/Fact Check is generally unreliable. Editors question the methodology of the site's ratings. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
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. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Media Research Center (CNSNews.com, MRCTV, 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.
1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
3 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
4 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Metro (British newspaper)
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2017 The reliability of Metro has been compared to that of the Daily Mail and other British tabloids. Articles published in the print newspaper (accessible via metro.news domain) are considered more reliable than articles published only on the metro.co.uk website. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Morning Star
No consensus
1 2

A B

2018 Morning Star is a British newspaper with a low circulation and readership that the New Statesman has described as "Britain's last communist newspaper".[36] There is no consensus on whether Morning Star engages in factual reporting. There is a broad consensus that Morning Star is a biased and partisan source. Take care to ensure that content from Morning Star constitutes due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Mother Jones
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 2017 There is consensus that Mother Jones is generally reliable. Almost all editors consider Mother Jones a biased source, so uses may need to be attributed. Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
The Nation
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 5 6 Discussions regarding this source are stale, and consensus may have changed.
2009
There is consensus that The Nation is generally reliable. Most editors consider The Nation a partisan source whose statements should be properly 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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
National Enquirer
Generally unreliable
Request for comment 2019

1 2 3 4 5 6

Discussion in progress
2019
The National Enquirer is a supermarket tabloid that is considered generally unreliable. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
National Review (NR)
No consensus
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2018 There is no consensus on the reliability of National Review. Most editors consider National Review a partisan source whose statements should be properly 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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
New York (Vulture, The Cut, Grub Street, Daily Intelligencer)
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 2016 There is a 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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
3 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
4 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
New York 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. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
New York Post (New York Evening Post, Page Six)
No consensus
1 2 3 4 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. The New York Post operates Page Six, its gossip section. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
The New York Times (NYT)
Generally reliable
Request for comment 2018 Request for comment 2018

+29[j]

2018 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 first 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. The second 2018 RfC was closed without extended discussion. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
The New Yorker
Generally reliable
1 2 Discussions regarding this source are stale, and consensus may have changed.
2011
There is consensus that The New Yorker is generally reliable. Editors note the publication's robust fact-checking process. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
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. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Newsweek
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 2016 There is consensus that Newsweek is generally reliable. Blogs under Newsweek, including The Gaggle, should be handled with the WP:NEWSBLOG policy. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
The Next Web
No consensus
1 2 3 2018 There is no consensus on the reliability of The Next Web. The 2014 and 2016 discussions considered TNW reliable, while the 2018 discussion leaned towards unreliability. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
NNDB (Notable Names Database)
Generally unreliable
Request for comment 2019

1 2 3 4

Discussion in progress
2019
NNDB is a biographical database operated by Soylent Communications, the parent company of shock site Rotten.com. There is consensus that NNDB is generally unreliable. 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 affected pages circular sources. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Occupy Democrats
Deprecated
Request for comment 2018 2018 In the 2018 RfC, there was 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 as a primary source for attributing opinions, viewpoints, and the like. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Patheos
Generally unreliable
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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
People
Generally reliable
Request for comment 2013

1 2 3 4

Discussions regarding this source are stale, and consensus may have changed.
2014
There is a 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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Pew Research Center
Generally reliable
1 2 Discussions regarding this source are stale, and consensus may have changed.
2012
There is a consensus that the Pew Research Center is generally reliable.
1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
3 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
4 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
5 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
6 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
7 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
8 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
PinkNews (Pink News)
No consensus
1 2 Discussions regarding this source are stale, and consensus may have changed.
2011
There is no consensus on the reliability of PinkNews. It is generally regarded as a biased or opinionated source. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Playboy
Generally reliable
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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Politico
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 5 6 2018 Politico is considered generally reliable for American politics. A small number of editors have asserted that Politico is a biased source. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
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. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
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.[37] 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
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. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Quillette
No consensus
1 2 2018 There is no consensus on the reliability of Quillette. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Quora
Generally unreliable
1 2 2018 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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Rate Your Music (RYM, Cinemos, Glitchwave, Sonemic)
Generally unreliable
Request for comment 2019

1
A

Discussion in progress
2019
The content on Rate Your Music is user-generated, and is considered generally unreliable.
1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
3 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
4 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
The Register
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

A

2017 The Register is considered generally reliable for technology-related articles. Some editors have asserted that The Register is a biased or opinionated source on topics involving Wikipedia. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Reuters
Generally reliable
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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
RIA Novosti
No consensus
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 a usable source 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 the entry for Sputnik, which replaced the international edition of RIA Novosti. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Rolling Stone
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2015 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 proper 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 assert that Rolling Stone is a partisan source in the field of politics, and that their statements in this field should also be attributed. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Rotten Tomatoes
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4

A

Discussions regarding this source are stale, and consensus may have changed.
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 a 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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
RT (Russia Today)
No consensus
1 2 3 4 5 6 2018 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,[38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46] including the promotion of conspiracy theories.[40][46][47][48] 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.[49] 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Salon
No consensus
1 2 3 2018 There is no consensus about the reliability of Salon. It is generally regarded as an opinion source, and is often regarded as biased and opinionated. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Science-Based Medicine
Generally reliable
Request for comment 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 to be a self-published source, but it is also not a peer-reviewed publication with respect to WP:MEDRS. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
ScienceBlogs
No consensus
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

A

Discussions regarding this source are stale, and consensus may have changed.
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 to be reliable, though articles outside the writer's relevant field are not. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
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 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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Snopes
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2018 Snopes is considered generally reliable. Attribution may be necessary. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Softpedia
No consensus
1 2 Discussion in progress
2019
Softpedia is considered reliable for its software and product reviews. There is no consensus on whether Softpedia news articles are generally reliable. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)
Generally reliable
14[k] Discussion in progress
2019
The Southern Poverty Law Center is considered generally reliable. 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. Take care to ensure that content from this organization constitutes due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
The Spectator
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 2018 Most editors consider The Spectator (not to be confused with the unrelated American Spectator) to be 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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Der Spiegel
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Sputnik
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 2018 There is a clear consensus that Sputnik News is a generally unreliable source. Sputnik is considered a Russian propaganda outlet that engages in bias and disinformation,[50] with some editors considering it to be less reliable than Breitbart News. Some editors consider Sputnik to be a reliable source for official Russian government statements and positions. See also the entry for RIA Novosti, whose international edition was replaced by Sputnik. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Stack Exchange (Stack Overflow, MathOverflow, Ask Ubuntu)
Generally unreliable
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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
3 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
4 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
5 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
6 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
The Sun (United Kingdom)
Deprecated
Request for comment 2019

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

2019 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 to be reliable for sports reporting. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
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. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Teen Vogue
No consensus
1 2 3 4 2019 There is no consensus on the reliability of Teen Vogue. See also the entry for Vogue. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
TheWrap
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. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Telesur
No consensus
Request for comment 2019

1 2

Discussion in progress
2019
There is no consensus that Telesur is a reliable source. The usage of Telesur as a source may be suitable for statements of fact, though it should mainly be used only as a point of view of the Venezuelan government and that of its supporters. Because of this, Telesur should be properly attributed. Telesur has been described as propaganda by its supporters and founder.[51][52] 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
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 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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Time
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 2015 There is consensus that Time is generally reliable. Time's magazine blogs, including Techland, should be handled with the appropriate policy. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
The Times (The Sunday Times, The Times of London)
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

A

2015 The Times, including its sister paper The Sunday Times, is considered generally reliable. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
3 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
TMZ
No consensus
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 2016 There is no consensus about 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 properly 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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
TorrentFreak
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2016 Most editors consider TorrentFreak to be 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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Townhall
No consensus
1 2 Discussions regarding this source are stale, and consensus may have changed.
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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Tunefind
Generally unreliable
1 2 2019 Tunefind is almost entirely composed of user-generated content, and is a self-published source. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
TV Guide
Generally reliable
1 2 Discussions regarding this source are stale, and consensus may have changed.
2012
TV Guide is considered generally reliable for television-related topics. Some editors consider TV Guide to be a primary source for air dates. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
TV Tropes
Generally unreliable
1 2 2016 TV Tropes is considered generally unreliable because it is an open wiki, which is a type of self-published source. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Us Weekly
No consensus
1 2 3 4 5 2018 There is no consensus about the reliability of Us Weekly. It is often considered less reliable than People magazine. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Variety
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 5 2016 As an entertainment trade magazine, Variety is considered a reliable source in its field. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
VDARE
Deprecated
Request for comment 2018 2018 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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Venezuelanalysis
No consensus
Request for comment 2019

1
A B

Discussion in progress
2019
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.[53] 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
VentureBeat
Generally reliable
1 2 Discussions regarding this source are stale, and consensus may have changed.
2011
VentureBeat is considered generally reliable for business- and technology-related articles. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
The Verge
Generally reliable
Request for comment 2018

1

Discussion in progress
2019
There is broad consensus that The Verge is a reliable source for use in articles relating to technology, science, and automobiles. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Vice Media (Garage, i-D, Motherboard, Vice, Vice News)
No consensus
1 2 3 4 5 Discussion in progress
2019
There is no consensus on the reliability of Vice magazine or Vice Media websites, including Motherboard and Vice News. It is generally regarded as more reliable for arts and entertainment than for politics. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Vogue
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 2018 Vogue is generally considered a reliable source. Potentially contentious statements made by Vogue interview subjects can be attributed to the individual. See also the entry for Teen Vogue. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Vox
Generally reliable
1 2 3 2017 Vox is considered generally reliable. It is often considered a partisan source, particularly regarding American politics. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
The Wall Street Journal (WSJ)
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 Discussions regarding this source are stale, and consensus may have changed.
2014
Most editors consider The Wall Street Journal generally reliable. Use WP:NEWSBLOG to evaluate the newspaper's blogs, including Washington Wire. Use WP:RSOPINION for opinion pieces. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Washington Examiner
No consensus
1 2 3 4 5 2019 There is no consensus about the reliability of the Washington Examiner. Almost all editors consider it a partisan source and believe that statements from this publication should be properly attributed. The Washington Examiner publishes opinion columns, which should be handled with the appropriate guideline. There is consensus that opinions in the Washington Examiner should not be used to substantiate exceptional claims regarding living persons. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
The Washington Post (WaPo)
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
The Washington Times
No consensus
1 2 2017 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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
The Weekly Standard
Generally reliable
1 2 3 Discussions regarding this source are stale, and consensus may have changed.
2014
The Weekly Standard is considered generally reliable, but much of their published content is opinion and should be attributed as such. Most editors assert this magazine is a partisan source. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Who's Who (UK)
No consensus
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. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
WhoSampled
Generally unreliable
1 2 2016 WhoSampled is almost entirely composed of user-generated content, and is a self-published source. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
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. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Wikidata
Generally unreliable
Request for comment 2013 Request for comment 2018

1 2

2018 Wikidata is largely user-generated, and articles should not directly cite Wikidata as a source (just as it would be inappropriate to cite other Wikipedias' articles as sources). See also the entry for transcluded Wikidata statements. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Wikidata transcluded statements
No consensus
Request for comment 2013 Request for comment 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 than Wikipedia content would be. As such, Module:WikidataIB and similar modules and templates filter unsourced Wikidata statements by default. See also the entry for direct citations of Wikidata.
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. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
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. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Wikipedia
Generally unreliable
15[l] 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.[54] 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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Wired
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

A

2018 Wired magazine is considered generally reliable for science and technology. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
WorldNetDaily (WND)
Deprecated
Request for comment 2018

+16[m]

2018 WorldNetDaily was deprecated in the 2018 RfC. There is a 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.[64] 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 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
YouTube
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 4 5 6 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 the external links guideline. See also WP:YOUTUBE and WP:VIDEOLINK. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
ZDNet
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2018 ZDNet is considered generally reliable for technology-related articles. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
  • 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 exceptional 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.
  • float 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 cited as a primary source if it is the topic of discussion, and the source may be used under WP:ABOUTSELF. However, reliable secondary sources are still preferred. An edit filter is in place to warn editors who attempt to cite the source as a reference in articles. The warning message can be dismissed.
  • float 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 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 4-5 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 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.
  • float 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.

See also[edit]

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ See these discussions of The Christian Science Monitor: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
  2. ^ See these discussions of CNET: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
  3. ^ See also these discussions of the Daily Mail: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
  4. ^ See these discussions of The Daily Telegraph: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
  5. ^ See these discussions of Dotdash: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
  6. ^ See these discussions of Entertainment Weekly:1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 A B
  7. ^ See also these discussions of Fox News: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
  8. ^ See these discussions of HuffPost: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
  9. ^ See these discussions of HuffPost contributors: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
  10. ^ See also these discussions of The New York Times: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
  11. ^ See these discussions of the Southern Poverty Law Center: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
  12. ^ See these discussions of Wikipedia: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
  13. ^ 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 October 23, 2018.
  2. ^ Bond, Paul (December 2, 2018). "TheBlaze and CRTV Merge to Create Conservative Media Powerhouse (Exclusive)". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved December 23, 2018.
  3. ^ *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.
  4. ^ 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.
  5. ^ Louis Jacobson (June 15, 2016). "Donald Trump suggests Barack Obama supported ISIS, but that's a conspiracy theory". PolitiFact.
  6. ^ "Did 58 Scientific Papers Published in 2017 Say Global Warming is a Myth?". Snopes.com. Retrieved July 14, 2017.
  7. ^ 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.
  8. ^ [3][4][5][6][7]
  9. ^ 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.
  10. ^ 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.
  11. ^ [9][10]
  12. ^ "Disclaimer". Business Insider. October 2, 2007. Archived from the original on March 12, 2015. Retrieved October 18, 2018.
  13. ^ Mitchell, Amy; Gottfried, Jeffrey; Kiley, Jocelyn; Matsa, Katerina Eva (October 21, 2014). "Media Sources: Distinct Favorites Emerge on the Left and Right". Pew Research Center. Retrieved October 23, 2018.
  14. ^ Wang, Shan (September 15, 2017). "BuzzFeed's strategy for getting content to do well on all platforms? Adaptation and a lot of A/B testing". Nieman Lab. Retrieved October 23, 2018.
  15. ^ Wang, Shan (July 18, 2018). "The investigations and reporting of BuzzFeed News — *not* BuzzFeed — are now at their own BuzzFeedNews.com". Nieman Lab. Retrieved October 23, 2018.
  16. ^ Harris, Malcolm (September 19, 2018). "The Big Secret of Celebrity Wealth (Is That No One Knows Anything)". The New York Times. Retrieved September 29, 2018.
  17. ^ "Our Portfolio". Digital Currency Group. Retrieved November 21, 2018.
  18. ^ "About us". Discogs.
  19. ^ Dreyfuss, Emily (May 3, 2017). "RIP About.com". Wired. ISSN 1059-1028. Retrieved December 29, 2018 – via www.wired.com.
  20. ^ Shields, Mike (December 18, 2017). "About.com had become a web relic, so its owner blew it up — and now it's enjoying a surge in revenue". Business Insider. Retrieved December 29, 2018.
  21. ^ "Contribute – Find A Grave". www.findagrave.com.
  22. ^ Ember, Sydney (January 18, 2018). "HuffPost, Breaking From Its Roots, Ends Unpaid Contributions". Retrieved October 23, 2018.
  23. ^ Oppenheim, Maya (March 4, 2018). "Dozens of leading brands pull ads from far right conspiracy site InfoWars' YouTube channel". Independent.
  24. ^ Hafner, Josh (May 24, 2018). "Sandy Hook families suing Alex Jones aren't the only ones to threaten conspiracy theorist". USA Today.
  25. ^ Murphy, Paul P. (March 3, 2018). "Advertisers flee InfoWars founder Alex Jones' YouTube channel". CNN tech.
  26. ^ Lima, Cristiano (March 13, 2018). "InfoWars, Alex Jones sued for defamation over Charlottesville claims". Politico.
  27. ^ "Families of Sandy Hook victims could force Alex Jones to admit his outrageous lie". Boston Globe.
  28. ^ "Why Tommy Robinson Was Jailed, and Why U.S. Rightwingers Care". TIME.
  29. ^ "Republicans press social media giants on anti-conservative 'bias' that Dems call 'nonsense'". CBS19.
  30. ^ Shantz, Jeff (2016). Manufacturing Phobias: The Political Production of Fear in Theory and Practice. p. 231. ISBN 978-1-4426-2884-7.
  31. ^ Sandlin, Jennifer (2017). Paranoid Pedagogies: Education, Culture, and Paranoia. p. 170. ISBN 978-3-319-64764-7.
  32. ^ "Free Speech Systems LLC". Bloomberg L.P.
  33. ^ "Roger Stone, former Donald Trump adviser, lands InfoWars gig with Alex Jones". The Washington Times. December 31, 2017.
  34. ^ "The Lost Art of Privacy". National Review. December 15, 2017.
  35. ^ [23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34]
  36. ^ Platt, Edward (4 August 2015). "Inside the Morning Star, Britain's last communist newspaper". New Statesman. Retrieved 31 January 2019.
  37. ^ Anti-Defamation League (October 17, 2013). "Iran's Press TV: Broadcasting Anti-Semitism to the English-Speaking World" (PDF). Retrieved August 8, 2018.
  38. ^ Julia Ioffe (October 2010). "What Is Russia Today?". Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved August 8, 2018.
  39. ^ Paul C, Matthews M (2016). "The Russian "Firehose of Falsehood" Propaganda Model".
  40. ^ a b Bidder B (August 13, 2013). "Russia Today: Putin's Weapon in the War of Images". Spiegel Online. Retrieved August 8, 2018.
  41. ^ Gillette F (March 14, 2014). "On the Kremlin's Overseas Propaganda News Channel, Putin Really Rules". Bloomberg Businessweek. Retrieved August 8, 2018.
  42. ^ "RT: News channel or propaganda tool?". Al Jazeera. January 26, 2012. Retrieved August 8, 2018.
  43. ^ Brown E (March 20, 2014). "Russia Today Drops All Pretense of Editorial Independence, Publishes Pro-Putin Propaganda". Internation Business Times. Retrieved August 8, 2018.
  44. ^ Harding L (December 18, 2009). "Russia Today launches first UK ad blitz". The Guardian. Retrieved August 8, 2018.
  45. ^ MacFarquhar N (August 28, 2016). "A Powerful Russian Weapon: The Spread of False Stories". New York Times. Retrieved August 8, 2018.
  46. ^ a b Rutenberg J (September 13, 2017). "RT, Sputnik and Russia's New Theory of War". New York Times. Retrieved August 8, 2018.
  47. ^ Scherr S (August 2010). "Russian TV Channel Pushes 'Patriot' Conspiracy Theories". Southern Poverty Law Center. Retrieved August 8, 2018.
  48. ^ Altman A (July 22, 2014). "Russian Television Under Spotlight After Malaysia Airlines Crash in Ukraine". Time. Retrieved August 8, 2018.
  49. ^ 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.
  50. ^ MacFarquhar, Neil (August 28, 2016). "A Powerful Russian Weapon: The Spread of False Stories". The New York Times. Retrieved 29 August 2016.
  51. ^ Rory, Carroll, (2014). Comandante : Hugo Chavez's Venezuela. Penguin Books: New York. pp. 195–196. ISBN 0143124889. [Telesur] did not achieve latinamericanization and continued to be Venezuelan ... [Telesur uses] propaganda as rolling news ...
  52. ^ Kozloff, Nikolas (2015). Hugo Chávez: Oil, Politics, and the Challenge to the U.S. p. 29. ISBN 1250105064. [Telesur's] widely-acknowledged reputation for being a vehicle for Chávez-funded propaganda |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  53. ^ "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.
  54. ^ "What is Wikipedia? The best way to find out is to consult it". The Independent. February 19, 2018. Retrieved February 22, 2019.
  55. ^ 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.
  56. ^ 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.
  57. ^ 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 March 26, 2010. according to WorldNetDaily.com, a conservative Web site.
  58. ^ "Fact-checking President-elect Trump's news conference". Washington Post. Retrieved May 26, 2017. 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.
  59. ^ "The highly reliable, definitely-not-crazy places where Donald Trump gets his news". Washington Post. Retrieved May 26, 2017. WND is a leader in preserving murder cover-up theories, publishing 'exclusive reports' linking the Clintons to a plot to kill their longtime friend.
  60. ^ CNN, Gregory Krieg. "Trump's supporters and their bloody words of war". CNN. Retrieved May 26, 2017. Writing in the right-wing site WorldNetDaily, Pat Buchanan...
  61. ^ "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.
  62. ^ Michael Brendan, Dougherty. "Conservative Radio Host Says Andrew Breitbart Might Have Been Assassinated". Business Insider. Retrieved February 17, 2017. The report comes from WorldNetDaily, a right-wing website that periodically promotes conspiracy theories about Obama's birth certificate.
  63. ^ Selk, Avi. "In rumors around a DNC staffer's death, a whiff of a Clinton-era conspiracy theory". Washington Post. Retrieved May 17, 2017. 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.
  64. ^ [55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63]