Wikipedia:RSPDEADLINE

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources

The following presents a non-exhaustive list of sources whose reliability and use on Wikipedia are frequently discussed. This list summarizes prior consensus and consolidates links to the most in-depth and recent discussions from the reliable sources noticeboard and elsewhere on Wikipedia.

The reliability of a source greatly affects what information it can be used to support, or whether it should be used at all.
↓ Jump to the list of frequently discussed sources. ↓

Context matters tremendously, and some sources may or may not be suitable for certain uses depending on the situation. When in doubt, defer to the linked discussions for more detailed information on a particular source and its use. Consensus can change, and if more recent discussions considering new evidence or arguments reach a different consensus, this list should be updated to reflect those changes.

How to use this list

Shortcut

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

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

Consider the type of content being referenced, alongside the reliability of the sources cited. Mundane, uncontroversial claims can be supported by lightweight sources, while information related to biomedicine and living persons typically require the most weighty ones.

What if my source is not here?

Shortcut

If your source is not listed here, it only means that it has not been the subject of repeated community discussion. That may be because the source you want to use is a stellar source, and we simply never needed to talk about it because it was so obvious.[lower-alpha 1] It could mean that the source covers a niche topic,[lower-alpha 2] or that it simply fell through the cracks. Or it could mean the source is so obviously poor it never merited discussion. If suppose you're concerned about any source being used on Wikipedia. In that case, you should review the reliable sources noticeboard (RSN), following the instructions at the top of that page, where you can "Search the noticeboard archives":

If you do not find what you're looking for, please start a discussion about it there. That is, after all, how the entries on this list got here to begin with.

You can also find a much longer list of previously discussed sources on various topics at Wikipedia:New page patrol source guide.

A source's absence from the list does not imply that it is any more or less reliable than the sources that are present. Absence just means its reliability has not been the subject of serious questioning yet. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

How to improve this list

Shortcut

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

Before doing so, please thoroughly familiarize yourself with content of previous discussions, and particularly the reasoning why consensus was reached, and not simply the outcome itself. Also consider when consensus was formed, and that the outcomes of very recent discussions are unlikely to be quickly overturned. Repeatedly restarting discussions where a strong and recent consensus already exists, may be considered disruptive and a type of forum shopping.

If you feel that this list inadequately summarizes the content of the linked discussions, please help to improve it, or start a discussion on the talk page, especially if your changes prove controversial. In updating this list, please be mindful that it should only summarize the content of past discussions, and should not include novel arguments not previously covered in a centralized forum. If you would like to present a novel argument or interpretation, please do so in one of these forums, so that the discussion may be linked to, and itself summarized here.

Inclusion criteria

Shortcut

For a source to be added to this list, editors generally expect two or more significant discussions about the source's reliability in the past, or an uninterrupted request for comment on the source's reliability that took place on the reliable sources noticeboard. For a discussion to be considered significant, most editors expect no fewer than two qualifying participants for RSN discussions where the source's name is in the section heading, and no fewer than three qualifying participants for all other discussions. Qualifying participants are editors who make at least one comment on the source's reliability.

Instructions

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

Legend

  • Shortcut
      Generally reliable Generally reliable in its areas of expertise: Editors show consensus that the source is reliable in most cases on subject matters in its areas of expertise. The source has a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and error-correction, often in the form of a strong editorial team. It will normally still be necessary to analyze how much weight to give the source and how to describe its statements. Arguments that entirely exclude such a source must be strong and convincing, e.g., the material is contradicted by more authoritative sources, it is outside the source's accepted areas of expertise (e.g. a well-established news organization would be normally reliable for politics but not for philosophy), a specific subcategory of the source is less reliable (such as opinion pieces in a newspaper), the source is making an exceptional claim, or a different standard of sourcing is required (WP:MEDRS, WP:BLP) for the statement in question.
  • Shortcut
      No consensus No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply: The source is marginally reliable (i.e. neither generally reliable nor generally unreliable), and may be usable depending on context. Editors may not have been able to agree on whether the source is appropriate, or may have agreed that it is only reliable in certain circumstances. It may be necessary to evaluate each use of the source on a case-by-case basis while accounting for specific factors unique to the source in question. Carefully review the Summary column of the table for details on the status of the source and the factors that should be considered.
  • Shortcut
      Generally unreliable Generally unreliable: Editors show consensus that the source is questionable in most cases. The source may lack an editorial team, have a poor reputation for fact-checking, fail to correct errors, be self-published, or present user-generated content. Outside exceptional circumstances, the source should normally not be used, and it should never be used for information about a living person. Even in cases where the source may be valid, it is usually better to find a more reliable source instead. If no such source exists, that may suggest that the information is inaccurate. The source may still be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions, and self-published or user-generated content authored by established subject-matter experts is also acceptable.
  • Shortcut
      Deprecated Deprecated: There is community consensus from a request for comment to deprecate the source. The source is considered generally unreliable, and use of the source is generally prohibited. Despite this, the source may be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions, although reliable secondary sources are still preferred. An edit filter, 869 (hist · log), may be in place to warn editors who attempt to cite the source as a reference in articles. The warning message can be dismissed. Edits that trigger the filter are tagged.
  •   Blacklisted Blacklisted: Due to persistent abuse, usually in the form of external link spamming, the source is registered on the spam blacklist or the Wikimedia global spam blacklist. Edits that attempt to add this source are automatically prevented on a technical level, unless an exception is made for a specific link in the spam whitelist.
  • Request for comment Request for comment: The linked discussion is an uninterrupted request for comment on the reliable sources noticeboard or another centralized venue suitable for determining the source's reliability. The closing statement of any RfC that is not clearly outdated should normally be considered authoritative and can only be overturned by a newer RfC.
  • Stale discussions Stale discussions: The source has not been discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard for four calendar years, and the consensus may have changed since the most recent discussion. However, sources that are considered generally unreliable for being self-published or presenting user-generated content are excluded. A change in consensus resulting from changes in the source itself does not apply to publications of the source from before the changes in question. Additionally, while it may be prudent to review these sources before using them, editors should generally assume that the source's previous status is still in effect if there is no reason to believe that the circumstances have changed.
  • Discussion in progress 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.
  • 📌 Shortcut: Abbreviated wikilink to the list entry for the source.

Sources

Shortcuts
Note: If you add/remove a source in the "generally unreliable", "deprecated" or "blacklisted" categories, please update WP:CITEWATCH/SETUP/GENERAL § WP:RSP, or leave a note at Wikipedia talk:CITEWATCH if you need help.
More information Source, Status (legend) ...

Categories

Religious scriptures

See WP:RSPSCRIPTURE.

Self-published peerage websites

The following self-published peerage websites have been deprecated in requests for comment:

See § Peerage websites for the corresponding entry.

State-sponsored fake news sites

A limited number of sites are identified by credible sources (e.g. the EU's anti-disinformation East Stratcom Task Force) as disseminators of fake news. Many of these are state-sponsored. These sites are considered unreliable and should be blacklisted when identified. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 281 § RfC: Deprecation of fake news / disinformation sites.

Shortcuts

Even legitimate Indian news organizations (print, television, and web) intermingle regular news with sponsored content and press release–based write-ups, often with inadequate or no disclosure. This is especially the case in reviews, articles about celebrities, and profiles of persons, companies and entities of borderline notability. This issue is distinct from that of journalism quality and bias, and that of sham news-style websites.

Paid news is a highly pervasive and deeply integrated practice within Indian news media. Coverage related to the above mentioned entities requires extra vigilance given the diverse systemic approaches to paid news and the lack of clear disclosure practices in Indian media.

Exercise caution in using such sources for factual claims or to establish notability. Look at the tone and language of the article, its placement in the publication, use of generic bylines not identifying an individual reporter or reviewer, overlap in language with articles found in other publications and on other websites, and others. Examples of sponsored content include supplements published by The Times of India; the Special section of the Daily Pioneer; the Brand Wire section of ABP Live; the Press Release News or the Digpu News Network sections of Firstpost; the Business Spotlight section of Outlook; the Brand Connect section of Forbes India; the Brand Solutions produced content on The Indian Express, although problematic content is not restricted to these sections alone. If in doubt, consult the reliable sources noticeboard.

Student media

Shortcut

Reputable student media outlets, such as The Harvard Crimson, are considered generally reliable sources for news on their school and local community.[29][30][31] They can sometimes be considered reliable on other topics, although professional sources are typically preferred when available.[30] However, given their local audience and lack of independence from their student body, student media does not contribute to notability for topics related to home institutions.[32]

Tabloids

Tabloids are types of news reporting characterized by sensationalistic stories. General consensus is that well-established tabloids should be used with care. They often repeat unverified rumors, have questionable fact-checking, and are often unsuitable for information about living people. When judging reliability of tabloids, editors often first assume its reliability to be mixed and then work it up or down.

Valnet

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources § Valnet.

See also

Topic-specific pages

Main page: Category:WikiProject lists of reliable sources

Templates and categories

Notes

  1. This is the case for some of the most prestigious academic journals in the world, like Nature, The Lancet and Science.
  2. For sources in a specific field, there may be more information about the reliability of them provided by specific WikiProjects, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources.
  3. See also these discussions of Advameg: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 A
  4. See these discussions of BBC: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
  5. See these discussions of Blogger: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
  6. See also these discussions of Breitbart News: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 A
  7. See also these discussions of BuzzFeed News: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
  8. 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
  9. See these discussions of CNET: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
  10. See these discussions of CNN: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
  11. See also these discussions of CounterPunch: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
  12. See these discussions of The Daily Dot: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 A
  13. 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 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52
  14. See these discussions of The Daily Telegraph: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
  15. See these discussions of Dotdash: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
  16. See these discussions of Encyclopædia Britannica: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
  17. See these discussions of Forbes.com contributors: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
  18. Local Fox affiliates are considered distinct from Fox News, and are covered by WP:NEWSORG.
  19. See also these discussions of Fox News (news excluding politics and science): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
  20. See also these discussions of Fox News (politics and science): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
  21. See these discussions of GlobalSecurity.org: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
  22. See these discussions of The Guardian: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
  23. See these discussions of The Guardian blogs: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
  24. See these discussions of Haaretz: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
  25. See these discussions of The Hill: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
  26. See these discussions of HuffPost (excluding politics): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
  27. See these discussions of HuffPost (politics): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
  28. See these discussions of HuffPost contributors: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
  29. See these discussions of IGN: 1 2 3 4 5 6 A B C D E F
  30. See also these discussions of IMDb: 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 A B C D E F
  31. See also these discussions of Business Insider: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
  32. See also these discussions of Media Matters for America: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
  33. See also these discussions of the Media Research Center: 1 2 3 4 5 6
  34. See these discussions of Metacritic: 1 2 A B C D E F G H
  35. 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 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43
  36. See also these discussions of peerage websites (self-published): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
  37. See also these discussions of Quackwatch: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 A B
  38. See these discussions of RhythmOne: 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
  39. See these discussions of Snopes: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
  40. See these discussions of the Southern Poverty Law Center: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 A
  41. See these discussions of Der Spiegel: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
  42. See also these discussions of The Sun (UK): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
  43. See these discussions of TMZ: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
  44. See these discussions of Twitter: 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 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
  45. See also these discussions of VGChartz: A B C D E F G H I J
  46. See these discussions of The Washington Post: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
  47. See these discussions of WikiLeaks: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
  48. See these discussions of Wikipedia: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 A
  49. See these discussions of Wired: 1 2 3 4 5 6 A
  50. See these discussions of WordPress.com: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
  51. See also these discussions of WorldNetDaily: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
  52. See also these discussions of YouTube: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 A

References

  1. [1]
    "Apple Daily: Hong Kong pro-democracy paper announces closure". BBC News. June 23, 2021. Archived from the original on June 24, 2021. Retrieved June 24, 2021.
  2. [2]
    Sato, Mia (July 6, 2023). "G/O Media's AI 'innovation' is off to a rocky start". The Verge. Retrieved February 27, 2024.
  3. [3]
    "Ballotpedia: About". Ballotpedia. Archived from the original on November 7, 2018. Retrieved October 23, 2018.
  4. [4]
    Bond, Paul (December 2, 2018). "TheBlaze and CRTV Merge to Create Conservative Media Powerhouse (Exclusive)". The Hollywood Reporter. Archived from the original on December 18, 2018. Retrieved December 23, 2018.
  5. [5]
    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. Archived from the original on October 20, 2018. Retrieved October 23, 2018.
  6. [6]
    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. Archived from the original on November 21, 2018. Retrieved October 23, 2018.
  7. [7]
    Wang, Shan (July 18, 2018). "The investigations and reporting of BuzzFeed News – *not* BuzzFeed – are now at their own BuzzFeedNews.com". Nieman Lab. Archived from the original on November 30, 2018. Retrieved October 23, 2018.
  8. [8]
    Waclawiak, Karolina (May 5, 2023). "A Final Editor's Note". BuzzFeed News. Retrieved June 21, 2023.
  9. [9]
    Harris, Malcolm (September 19, 2018). "The Big Secret of Celebrity Wealth (Is That No One Knows Anything)". The New York Times. Archived from the original on September 27, 2018. Retrieved September 29, 2018.
  10. [10]
    Sato, Mia (August 9, 2023). "CNET is deleting old articles to try to improve its Google Search ranking". The Verge. Retrieved August 10, 2023.
  11. [11]
    "Our Portfolio". Digital Currency Group. Archived from the original on August 23, 2018. Retrieved November 21, 2018.
  12. [12]
    Lord Hague urges Culture Secretary to ‘intervene’ on Telegraph sale
  13. [13]
    "Fact Check: Is Mohammed the Most Popular Name for Newborn Boys in the Netherlands?". Snopes.com. Retrieved April 29, 2018.
  14. [14]
    "Carson Didn't Find HUD Errors". FactCheck.org. April 19, 2017. Retrieved April 29, 2018.
  15. [15]
    Dreyfuss, Emily (May 3, 2017). "RIP About.com". Wired. Archived from the original on August 25, 2018. Retrieved December 29, 2018.
  16. [16]
    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. Archived from the original on June 25, 2018. Retrieved December 29, 2018.
  17. [17]
    "Contribute – Find A Grave". www.findagrave.com. Archived from the original on July 31, 2018. Retrieved July 30, 2018.
  18. [18]
    Davis, Wes (July 8, 2023). "Gizmodo's staff isn't happy about G/O Media's AI-generated content". The Verge. Retrieved February 27, 2024.
  19. [19]
    Vincent, James (May 7, 2021). "LiveLeak, the internet's font of gore and violence, has shut down". The Verge. Archived from the original on May 15, 2021. Retrieved May 15, 2021.
  20. [20]
    See https://kanalregister.hkdir.no/publiseringskanaler/KanalForlagInfo.action?id=26778 (the publisher's summary page) and click on "Vis [+]" in "Assosierte tidsskrift" line to see the list and their ratings. As of February 2024, 13 (5.2%) of the 250 journals listed were rated X (under review) and 11 (4.4%) were rated 0 (unsuitable for scholarly publications, although they do not label them as predatory per se).]
  21. [21]
    Plunkett, Luke (December 5, 2019). "RIP Gamerankings.com". Kotaku. G/O Media. Retrieved December 6, 2019.
  22. [22]
    "GameRankings Shutting down". Archived from the original on December 4, 2019.
  23. [23]
    McAloon, Alissa (December 5, 2019). "Review aggregator site GameRankings is shutting down". Gamasutra. Retrieved December 5, 2019.
  24. [24]
    Platt, Edward (August 4, 2015). "Inside the Morning Star, Britain's last communist newspaper". New Statesman. Archived from the original on February 7, 2019. Retrieved January 31, 2019.
  25. [25]
    Anti-Defamation League (October 17, 2013). "Iran's Press TV: Broadcasting Anti-Semitism to the English-Speaking World" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on January 3, 2019. Retrieved August 8, 2018.
  26. [26]
    MacFarquhar, Neil (August 28, 2016). "A Powerful Russian Weapon: The Spread of False Stories". The New York Times. Archived from the original on February 21, 2017. Retrieved August 29, 2016.
  27. [27]
    Carless, Simon (June 23, 2008). "Analysis: What VGChartz Does (And Doesn't) Do For The Game Biz". Gamasutra. Retrieved October 3, 2014.
  28. [28]
    "Can we trust Wikipedia? 1.4 billion people can't be wrong". The Independent. February 19, 2018. Archived from the original on February 11, 2019. Retrieved February 22, 2019.
  29. [29]
    "Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 134". Wikipedia. October 2012. Retrieved April 22, 2020.
  30. [30]
    "Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 288". Wikipedia. March 2020. Retrieved April 22, 2020.
  31. [31]
    "Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 46". Wikipedia. October 2009.
  32. [32]
    "Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 366". Wikipedia. January 2022.
Share this article:

This article uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:RSPDEADLINE, and is written by contributors. Text is available under a CC BY-SA 4.0 International License; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.