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 other content may be merely opinion pieces, which mainly represent the personal views of the author, and depend on the author's personal reliability as a source. Be especially careful with sponsored content, because while it is usually unreliable as a source, it is designed to appear otherwise.

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

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 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
Advameg (City-Data)
Blacklisted
Generally unreliable
Request for comment 2019 Request for comment 2019

+14[a]

2019 Advameg operates a group of content farms, including City-Data, that uses scraped or improperly licensed content. Many of these sites republish content from Gale's encyclopedias; many editors can obtain access to Gale through The Wikipedia Library free of charge. Advameg's sites are on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. WP:COPYLINK prohibits linking to copyright violations. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg +43
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 say that Al Jazeera, particularly its Arabic-language media, is a partisan source with respect to the Arab–Israeli conflict. Al Jazeera's news blogs should be handled with the corresponding policy. 1 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 5 2019 There is consensus that AlterNet is generally unreliable. Editors consider AlterNet a partisan source, and its statements should be attributed. AlterNet's syndicated content should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher, and the citation should preferably point to the original publisher. 1 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; using republished Wikipedia content is considered circular sourcing. 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
arXiv
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 4

A B

2015 arXiv is a preprint (and sometimes postprint) repository containing papers that have undergone moderation, but not necessarily peer review. There is consensus that arXiv is a self-published source, and is generally unreliable with the exception of papers authored by established subject-matter experts. Verify whether a paper on arXiv is also published in a peer-reviewed academic journal; in these cases, cite the more reliable journal and provide an open access link to the paper (which may be hosted on arXiv). 1 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
14[b] 2019 BBC is considered generally reliable. This includes BBC News, BBC documentaries, and the BBC History site (on BBC Online). However, this excludes BBC projects that incorporate user-generated content (such as h2g2 and the BBC Domesday Project) and BBC publications with reduced editorial oversight (such as Collective). Statements of opinion should conform to the corresponding guideline. 1 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 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 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
Blogger (blogspot.com)
Generally unreliable
16[c] Discussion in progress
2019
Blogger is a blog hosting service that owns the blogspot.com domain. As a self-published source, it is considered generally unreliable and should be avoided unless the author is a subject-matter expert or the blog is used for uncontroversial self-descriptions. Blogger blogs published by a media organization should be evaluated by the reliability of the organization. Newspaper blogs hosted using Blogger should be handled with WP:NEWSBLOG. Blogger should never be used for third-party claims related to living persons; this includes interviews, as they cannot be authenticated. 1 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 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
Boing Boing
No consensus
1 2 3 2019 There is no consensus on the reliability of Boing Boing. Although Boing Boing is a group blog, some of its articles are written by subject-matter experts such as Cory Doctorow, who is considered generally reliable for copyright law. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Breitbart News
Blacklisted
Deprecated
Request for comment 2018

+12[d]

2019 Due to persistent abuse, Breitbart News is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. The site has published a number of falsehoods, conspiracy theories,[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
Bustle
No consensus
Request for comment 2019 2019 There is consensus that the reliability of Bustle is unclear and that its reliability should be decided on an instance by instance basis. Editors noted that it has an editorial policy and that it will issue retractions. Editors also noted previous issues it had around reliability and that its content is written by freelance writers – though there is no consensus on whether this model affects their reliability. 1 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 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] In light of the staff layoffs at BuzzFeed in January 2019, some editors recommend exercising more caution for BuzzFeed News articles published after this date. The site's opinion pieces should be handled with WP:RSOPINION. See also the entry for BuzzFeed. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 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 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 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
Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG, Global Research)
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 4 5 6 2019 The Centre for Research on Globalization is an organization that operates the Global Research website (globalresearch.ca, not to be confused with GlobalSecurity.org). The CRG is considered generally unreliable due to its propagation of conspiracy theories and lack of editorial oversight. It is a biased or opinionated source, and its content is likely to constitute undue weight. As it often covers fringe material, parity of sources should be considered. 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
The Christian Science Monitor (CS Monitor)
Generally reliable
20[e] 2016 The Christian Science Monitor is considered generally reliable for news. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
CliffsNotes
No consensus
1 2 2018 CliffsNotes is a study guide. Editors consider CliffsNotes usable for superficial analyses of literature, and recommend supplementing CliffsNotes citations with additional sources. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
CNET
Generally reliable
16[f] 2015 CNET is considered generally reliable for technology-related articles. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
CNN
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2016 There is consensus that news broadcast or published by CNN is generally reliable. However, user-submitted iReport/Exchange content and content from talk shows should be treated as self-published sources or opinion pieces. Some editors consider CNN somewhat biased, though not to the extent that it affects reliability. 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 attributed. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Cracked.com
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 4 5 2015 Cracked.com is a humor website. There is consensus that Cracked.com is generally unreliable. When Cracked.com cites another source for an article, it is preferable for editors to cite that source instead. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Crunchbase
Deprecated
Request for comment 2019

1 2

2019 In the 2019 RfC, there was consensus to deprecate Crunchbase, but also to continue allowing external links to the website. A significant proportion of Crunchbase's data is user-generated content. 1 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 2019

1 2 3 4 5 6

2019 The Daily Caller was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the site publishes "false or fabricated information". Most editors indicated that The Daily Caller is a partisan source with regard to United States politics and that their statements on this topic should be attributed. 1 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 Mail (MailOnline)
Deprecated
Request for comment 2017 Request for comment 2019

+35[g]

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[h] 2018 There is 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 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 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
Digital Spy
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 5

A

Discussions regarding this source are stale, and consensus may have changed.
2012
There is consensus that Digital Spy is generally reliable for entertainment and popular culture. Consider whether the information from this source constitutes due or undue weight. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Discogs
Generally unreliable
Request for comment 2019

1 2 3 4

2019 The content on Discogs is user-generated, and is therefore generally unreliable. There was consensus against deprecating Discogs in a 2019 RfC, as editors noted that external links to the site may be appropriate. 1 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[i] 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; using republished Wikipedia content is considered circular sourcing. In 2017, the About.com website became defunct and some of its content was moved to Dotdash's current website brands.[18][19] 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 3 2019 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 attributed. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Encyclopædia Britannica (Encyclopædia Britannica Online)
No consensus
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2019 The Encyclopædia Britannica (including its online edition, Encyclopædia Britannica Online) is a tertiary source with a strong reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Most editors prefer reliable secondary sources over the Encyclopædia Britannica when available. In January 2009, the Encyclopædia Britannica Online began accepting content submissions from the general public.[20] Although these submissions undergo the encyclopedia's editorial process, some editors believe that content from non-staff contributors is less reliable than the encyclopedia's staff-authored content. Content authorship is disclosed in the article history. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Engadget
Generally reliable
1

A

Discussions regarding this source are stale, and consensus may have changed.
2012
Engadget is considered generally reliable for technology-related articles. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Entertainment Weekly (EW)
Generally reliable
1 2 3

A

2018 Entertainment Weekly is considered generally reliable for entertainment-related articles. There is no consensus on whether it is reliable for other topics. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
The Epoch Times
No consensus
1 2 3 4 5 2018 There is no consensus on 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 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
Examiner.com
Blacklisted
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

A

Discussions regarding this source are stale, and consensus may have changed.
2014
Due to persistent abuse, Examiner.com is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. Examiner.com is considered a self-published source, as it has minimal editorial oversight. Most editors believe the site has a poor reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Prior to 2004, the examiner.com domain was used by The San Francisco Examiner, which has moved to a different domain. Examiner.com was shut down in 2016. 1 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 on the reliability of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. However, there is strong consensus that publications from FAIR should not be used to support exceptional claims regarding living persons. Most editors consider FAIR a biased or opinionated source whose statements should be attributed and generally treated as opinions. 1 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

+14[j]

2019 Fox News news programs are produced by their News department. Shows include America's Newsroom, Shepard Smith Reporting, Special Report with Bret Baier, and The Story with Martha MacCallum. Editors show consensus that news reports from Fox News are generally reliable. The 2010 RfC concluded: "Consensus is that while Fox may not always be reliable it is a Reliable Source", and pointed to the WP:NEWSORG guideline. Most editors consider Fox News a partisan news organization, and defer to the respective guidelines for these types of sources. Editors are advised to exercise caution when using Fox News as a source for political topics, and to attribute statements of opinion. See also 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 6 7

2019 Fox News talk shows are produced by their Programming department. Shows include Hannity, Tucker Carlson Tonight, The Ingraham Angle, and Fox & Friends. Content from these shows is equivalent to opinion pieces and should be handled with the appropriate guideline. Statements from these shows should be attributed. See also 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

2019 Gawker is an inactive gossip blog that frequently published articles on rumors and speculation without named authors. When Gawker is the only source for a piece of information, the information would likely constitute undue weight, especially when the subject is a living person. When another reliable source quotes information from Gawker, it is preferable to cite that source instead. In the 2019 RfC, there was no consensus on whether Gawker should be deprecated. 1 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 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 say that The Guardian blogs should be treated as newspaper blogs or opinion pieces due to reduced editorial oversight. Check the bottom of the article for a "blogposts" tag to determine whether the page is a blog post or a non-blog article. See also the 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
Hansard (UK Parliament transcripts, House of Commons, House of Lords)
No consensus
1 2 3 4 2019 As a transcript of parliament proceedings in the United Kingdom, Hansard is a primary source and its statements should be attributed to whoever made them. Hansard is considered generally reliable for UK parliamentary proceedings and UK government statements. It is not considered reliable as a secondary source as it merely contains the personal opinions of whoever is speaking in Parliament that day, and is subject to Parliamentary privilege. Hansard is not a word-for-word transcript and may omit repetitions and redundancies.
1 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
Heavy.com
No consensus
1 2 2019 There is consensus that Heavy.com should not be relied upon for any serious or contentious statements, including dates of birth. When Heavy.com cites another source for their own article, it is preferable to cite the original source instead. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
The Hill
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Discussion in progress
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
HispanTV
Deprecated
Request for comment 2019 2019 HispanTV was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed overwhelming consensus that the TV channel is generally unreliable and sometimes even publishes outright fabrications. Editors listed multiple examples of HispanTV broadcasting conspiracy theories and Iranian propaganda. 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 Hollywood Reporter (THR)
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 5 2018 There is consensus that The Hollywood Reporter is generally reliable for entertainment-related topics, including its articles and reviews on film, TV and music, as well as its box office figures. 1 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 5

2019 Most commenters declined to make a general statement about publications from Hope not Hate. Reliability should be assessed on a case by case basis, while taking context into account. Because they are an advocacy group, they are a biased and opinionated source and their statements should be attributed. 1 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
17[k] 2019 There is no consensus on the reliability of HuffPost. As HuffPost is a newer publication, some editors prefer to use reliable sources with more established reputations. Some editors believe the site reports with a political slant, which makes it 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[l] 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 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
Request for comment 2019

+12[m]

Discussion in progress
2019
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 on the reliability of the Independent Journal Review. Posts from "community" members are considered self-published sources. The site's "news" section consists mostly of syndicated stories from Reuters, and citations of these stories should preferably point to Reuters. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
InfoWars (NewsWars)
Blacklisted
Deprecated
Request for comment 2018

1

2018 Due to persistent abuse, InfoWars is on both the Wikipedia spam blacklist and the Wikimedia global spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. InfoWars 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
3 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
4 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
International Business Times (IBT, IBTimes)
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2019 There is consensus that the International Business Times is generally unreliable. Editors note that the publication's editorial practices have been criticized by other reliable sources, and point to the inconsistent quality of the site's articles. The site's syndicated content, which may not be clearly marked, should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher.
1 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
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 consensus that Jezebel should generally be avoided as a source, especially on biographies of living persons. Many editors consider Jezebel to inappropriately blur news reporting and opinion. Some editors say that Jezebel is 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
Deprecated
Request for comment 2019

1

2019 Last.fm was deprecated in the 2019 RfC. The content on Last.fm is user-generated, and is considered generally unreliable. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
LiveJournal
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 Discussions regarding this source are stale, and consensus may have changed.
2012
LiveJournal is a blog hosting service. As a self-published source, it is considered generally unreliable. LiveJournal can be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions and content from subject-matter experts, but not as a secondary source for living persons. 1 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 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 on the reliability of Media Matters for America. As a biased or opinionated source, their statements should be 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 on the reliability of Media Research Center publications, including NewsBusters. As a biased or opinionated source, their statements should be 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
Mediaite
No consensus
1 2 3 2019 There is some consensus that Mediaite is only marginally reliable, and should be avoided where better sources are available. Editors consider the source to inappropriately blur news and opinion, and due weight should be considered if no other reliable sources support a given statement. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Medium
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 2019 Medium is a blog hosting service. As a self-published source, it is considered generally unreliable and should be avoided unless the author is a subject-matter expert or the blog is used for uncontroversial self-descriptions. Medium should never be used as a secondary source for living persons. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
MetalSucks
No consensus
1 2

A

2018 MetalSucks is considered usable for its reviews and news articles. Avoid its overly satirical content and exercise caution when MetalSucks is the only source making a statement. 1 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
Mondoweiss
No consensus
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2019 Mondoweiss is a news website operated by the Center for Economic Research and Social Change (CERSC), an advocacy organization. There is no consensus on the reliability of Mondoweiss. Editors consider the site a biased or opinionated source, and its statements should be attributed. 1 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
MyLife (Reunion.com)
Blacklisted
Generally unreliable
1 2 2019 Due to persistent abuse, MyLife is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. MyLife (formerly known as Reunion.com) is an information broker that publishes user-generated content, and is considered generally unreliable. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
2 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 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
Deprecated
Request for comment 2019

1 2 3 4 5 6

2019 The National Enquirer is a supermarket tabloid that is considered generally unreliable. In the 2019 RfC, there was weak consensus to deprecate the National Enquirer as a source, but no consensus to create an edit filter to warn editors against using the publication. 1 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 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 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

+31[n]

2019 Most editors consider The New York Times generally reliable. WP:RSOPINION should be used to evaluate opinion columns, while WP:NEWSBLOG should be used for the blogs on The New York Times's website. The 2018 RfC cites WP:MEDPOP to establish that popular press sources such as The New York Times should generally not be used to support medical claims. 1 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 6 2019 There is consensus that Newsweek is generally reliable. Blogs under Newsweek, including The Gaggle, should be handled with the WP:NEWSBLOG policy. From 2013 to 2018, Newsweek was owned by IBT Media, the parent company of International Business Times; its articles from this time period should be scrutinized more carefully. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
The Next Web (TNW)
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)
Deprecated
Request for comment 2019

1 2 3 4

2019 NNDB is a biographical database operated by Soylent Communications, the parent company of shock site Rotten.com. It was deprecated in the 2019 RfC. Editors note NNDB's poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, despite the site claiming to have an editorial process. Editors have also found instances of NNDB incorporating content from Wikipedia, which would make the use of the affected pages circular sourcing. 1 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 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
The Onion
Generally unreliable
1 2 2019 The Onion is a satirical news website, and should not be used as a source for facts. 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 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 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
The Points Guy (news and reviews)
Blacklisted
No consensus
Request for comment 2019 2019 There is no consensus on the reliability of news articles and reviews on The Points Guy. The Points Guy has advertising relationships with credit card and travel companies, and content involving these companies should be avoided as sources. The Points Guy is currently on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. 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 Points Guy (sponsored content)
Blacklisted
Generally unreliable
Request for comment 2019 2019 There is consensus that sponsored content on The Points Guy, including content involving credit cards, should not be used as sources. The Points Guy has advertising relationships with credit card and travel companies, receiving compensation from readers signing up for credit cards via the website's links. The Points Guy is currently on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. 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 say that Politico is a biased source. 1 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
PolitiFact (PunditFact)
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
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 4 5 6 2019 There is consensus that Press TV is generally unreliable. As a state-owned media network in a country with low press freedom, Press TV may be a primary source for the viewpoint of the Iranian government, although due weight should be considered. Press TV is a biased or opinionated source, and its statements should be attributed. 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
2 Ic lock outline 48px.svg OOjs UI icon link-ltr.svg
Quackwatch
No consensus