 | This is aninformation page. It is not anencyclopedic article, nor one ofWikipedia's policies or guidelines; rather, its purpose is to explain certain aspects ofWikipedia:Reliable sources guideline. It may reflect differing levels ofconsensus andvetting. |
 | This page in a nutshell: This is a list of repeatedly discussed sources, collected and summarized for convenience.Consensus can change, andcontext matters tremendously when determining how to use this list.Only sources that have beenrepeatedly raised for discussion are listed here, it isnot a general or comprehensive list of all generally reliable or unreliable sources in the world, it is asummarization of discussions about the listed sources. |
The following presents a non-exhaustive list of sources whosereliability and use on Wikipedia are frequently discussed. This list summarizes prior consensus and consolidates links to the most in-depth and recent discussions from thereliable sources noticeboard and elsewhere on Wikipedia.
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.
Refer to thelegend 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 formalWikipedia:Requests for comment (RfCs). This list indexes discussions that reflect communityconsensus, 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 sometimesbe used as self-published sources for routine informationabout the subjects themselves. Conversely, some otherwise high-quality sources may not be reliable for highly technical subjects that fall well outside their normalareas 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 withsponsored 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 tobiomedicine andliving persons typically require the most weighty ones.
If a 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 is astellar source, and we simply never needed to talk about it because it is so obviously reliable,[a] or it could mean the source is so obviously poor it never merited discussion. It could mean that the source covers a niche topic,[b] or that it simply fell through the cracks. If you're concerned about any source being used on Wikipedia, you should review thereliable 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 atWikipedia: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.
Y a list of sources whose general suitability for most purposes has beendiscussed repeatedly
N a list of pre-approved sources that can always be used without regard for theordinary rules of editingN a list of banned sources that can never be used or should be removed on sightN a list ofbiased or unbiased sourcesN a list of sources that are guaranteed to be correctregardless of contextN a list of every source that has been discussedN a list of sources that have never been discussed, or whose reliability should be obvious to most editorsN a list ofprimary, secondary, or tertiary sourcesN a list ofindependent or affiliated sourcesN a list ofself-published or traditionally published sourcesN a representativesample of all sources used on Wikipedia or all sources in existenceConsensus 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 arequest for comment (RfC) at thereliable 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 considereddisruptive and a type offorum shopping.
If you feel that this list inadequately summarizes the content of the linked discussions,please help to improve it, or start a discussion onthe talk page, especiallyif your changes prove controversial. In updating this list, please be mindful thatit 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 expecttwo or more significant discussions about the source's reliability in the past, or an uninterruptedrequest for comment on the source's reliability that took place on thereliable 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.
Any editor may improve this list. Please refer to theinstructions for details, and ask for help onthe talk page if you get stuck.
Generally reliable in itsareas of expertise: Editors showconsensus that the source isreliable in most cases on subject matters in itsareas 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 muchweight 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. awell-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 anexceptional claim, or a different standard of sourcing is required (WP:MEDRS,WP:BLP) for the statement in question.
No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply: The source is marginally reliable (i.e. neithergenerally reliable norgenerally unreliable), and may be usabledepending 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.
Generally unreliable: Editors showconsensus that the source isquestionable in most cases. The source may lack an editorial team, have a poor reputation for fact-checking, fail to correct errors, beself-published, or presentuser-generated content. Outsideexceptional circumstances, the source should normally not be used, and it should never be used for information about aliving 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 foruncontroversial self-descriptions, and self-published or user-generated content authored by establishedsubject-matter experts is also acceptable.
Deprecated: There is communityconsensus from arequest for comment todeprecate the source. The source is consideredgenerally unreliable, and use of the source is generally prohibited. Despite this, the source may be used foruncontroversial self-descriptions, although reliablesecondary sources are still preferred. Anedit filter,869 (hist ·log), may be in place towarn editors who attempt to cite the source as a reference in articles. The warning message can be dismissed. Edits that trigger the filter aretagged.
Blacklisted: Due to persistent abuse, usually in the form ofexternal link spamming, the source is registered on thespam blacklist or theWikimedia 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 thespam whitelist.
Edit-filtered: Anedit filter,869 (hist ·log), is in place towarn 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 with "deprecated source". This icon links to the diff that added the source to the edit filter.
Request for comment: The linked discussion is an uninterruptedrequest for comment on thereliable sources noticeboard or another centralized venue suitable for determining the source'sreliability. 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: The source has not been discussed on thereliable sources noticeboard for four or morecalendar years, and theconsensus may have changed since the most recent discussion. However, sources that are consideredgenerally unreliable for beingself-published or presentinguser-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: The source is currently being discussed on thereliable 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.| Source | Status (legend) | Discussions | Use | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| List | Last | Summary | |||
| 112 Ukraine | | 2019 2020 2020 | 2020 | 112 Ukraine was deprecated following a 2019 RfC, which showed overwhelming consensus for the deprecation of a slew of sources associated with Russian disinformation in Ukraine. It was pointed out later in a 2020 RfC that 112 Ukraine had not been explicitly discussed in that first discussion prior to its blacklisting request. Further discussion established a rough consensus that the source is generally unreliable, but did not form a consensus for deprecation or blacklisting. The prior blacklisting was reversed as out of process. 112 Ukraine was shut down in 2021; website content is no longer accessible unless archived. | 1   2 |
| ABC News (US) | | 12 | 2021 | There is consensus that ABC News, the news division of theAmerican Broadcasting Company, is generally reliable. It is not to be confused withother publications of the same name. | 1 2 |
| Academic repositories WP:ACADREP 📌 WP:ACADEMIA.EDU 📌 WP:RGATE 📌 WP:ZENODO 📌 | | 16[c] | 2024 | General repositories likeAcademia.edu,HAL Open Archives,ResearchGate,Semantic Scholar, andZenodo host academic papers, conference proceedings, book chapters, preprints, technical reports, etc. No filters exist for quality, and will host several unreviewedpreprints,retracted papers not marked as such, unreviewedmanuscripts, and even papers frompredatory journals. Determine the original source of what is being cited to establish reliability. When possible, cite the original source in preference to the repository. | 1 2 3 |
| Acclaimed Music | | 1234 | 2022 | Acclaimed Music is generally unreliable as the site is aself-published source with little to no editorial oversight. | 1 |
| Ad Fontes Media WP:ADFONTES 📌 | | 12345 | 2021 | There is consensus that Ad Fontes Media and their Media Bias Chart should not be used in article space in reference to sources' political leaning or reliability. Editors consider it aself-published source and have questioned its methodology. | 1 |
| Advameg(City-Data) | | 2019 2019 2019 +14[d] | 2019 | Advameg operatescontent farms, includingCity-Data, that usescraped or improperly licensed content. These sites frequently republish content fromGale's encyclopedias; many editors canobtain access to Gale throughThe Wikipedia Library free of charge. Advameg's sites are on theWikipedia spam blacklist, and links must bewhitelisted before they can be used.WP:COPYLINK prohibits linking to copyright violations. | 1 2 +43 |
| The Age | | 2021 | 2021 | The Age is a newspaper based in Melbourne, Australia. There is consensus that it is generally reliable. | 1 |
| Agence France-Presse(AFP) | | 123 | 2021 | Agence France-Presse is anews agency. There is consensus that Agence France-Presse is generally reliable.Syndicated reports from Agence France-Presse that are published in other sources are also considered generally reliable. | 1 |
| Al Jazeera (excluding the Arab–Israeli conflict) WP:ALJAZEERA 📌 | | 2024 +16[e] | 2024 | Al Jazeera is a Qatari state-fundednews organization and in the 2024 RfC there was consensus that it is generally reliable. Most editors seem to agree that Al Jazeera English and especially Al Jazeera Arabic arebiased sources on theArab–Israeli conflict and on topics for which the Qatari government has a conflict of interest. Editors perceiveAl Jazeera English to be more reliable thanAl Jazeera Arabic. Al Jazeera'slive blogs should be treated with caution, per thepolicy on news blogs. Note that the domain name "aljazeera.com" only started hosting Al Jazeera English content in 2011; links to aljazeera.com prior to 2011 pointed to the unaffiliatedAl Jazeera Magazine. | 1 2 |
| Al Mayadeen WP:ALMAYADEEN 📌 | | 2023
| 2023 | Al Mayadeen is a Lebanese pan-Arabist news channel. It was deprecated in a 2023 RfC. Some editors believe it publishes lies or misrepresents sources, some describe it as propaganda. | 1 2 |
| Al-Manar (general topics) | | 2024 | 2024 | The 2024 RfC established no consensus on the reliability of Al-Manar. As a publication ofHezbollah, editors believe it may be usable for attributed statements from Hezbollah under the conditions ofWP:ABOUTSELF. It may also be usable for non-controversial topics on Lebanese culture depending on the context.See also:Al-Manar (controversial topics). | 1 |
| Al-Manar (controversial topics) | | 2024 | 2024 | In the 2024 RfC, editors generally agreed that Al-Manar is generally unreliable for topics that are controversial, especially with regards to theArab–Israeli conflict.See also:Al-Manar (general topics). | 1 |
| Alexa Internet | | 2022 | 2022 | Alexa Internet was a web traffic analysis company owned byAmazon and discontinued as of May 2022. There is no consensus on the reliability ofAlexa Internet's website rankings. According to Alexa Internet, rankings of low-traffic websites are less reliable than rankings of high-traffic websites, and rankings of 100,000 and above are unreliable. A March 2022 RfC found no consensus on whether citations of Alexa Internet should be removed now that the service is defunct. Due to their instability, Alexa rankings should be excluded frominfoboxes. | 1 |
| AllMovie (2024–present) WP:ALLMOVIE 📌 | | 12 | 2025 | AllMovie, previously owned byRhythmOne, is a movie database. Since its acquisition, it has operated as amirror of Wikimedia content; using republished Wikimedia content is consideredcircular sourcing.See also:RhythmOne. | 1 |
| AllSides WP:ALLSIDES 📌 | | 2022 | 2023 | In a 2022 RfC, editors found no consensus on the reliability of AllSides as a whole. A significant minority of users noted that AllSides has been referenced in reliable sources as an accurate source for media bias ratings, while another significant minority argued that its methodology, which is partly based on the opinions of users, makes it unsuitable for Wikipedia. There is general consensus that reliability varies among the website's articles and should be determined on a case-by-case basis; while the high-confidence ratings are generally reliable as they are reviewed carefully by experts, others depend on blind user surveys that some editors consider opinionated and less reliable. | 1 |
| AlterNet | | 12345 | 2019 | There is consensus that AlterNet is generally unreliable. Editors consider AlterNet apartisan source, and its statements should beattributed. AlterNet'ssyndicated content should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher, and the citation should preferably point to the original publisher. | 1 |
| Amazon WP:RSPAMAZON 📌 | | 1234567 | 2021 | User reviews on Amazon are anonymous,self-published, and unverifiable, and should not be used at all. While Amazon itself is a reliable source for basic information about a work (such as release date, ISBN, etc.), it is unnecessary to cite Amazon when the work itself may serve as a source for that information. Future release dates may be unreliable. | |
| The American Conservative(TAC) WP:TAC 📌 | | 2019 2020 2021 | 2023 | The American Conservative is published by the American Ideas Institute, an advocacy organisation. It is a self-identified opinionated source whose factual accuracy has been questioned, and many editors say thatThe American Conservative should not be used as a source for facts. There is consensus thatopinions sourced to it must always be accompanied within-text attribution. | 1 |
| Amnesty International(Amnesty, AI) | | 2022 | 2023 | Amnesty International is a human rights advocacy organisation. There is consensus that Amnesty International is generally reliable for facts. Editors may on occasion wish to use wording more neutral than that used by Amnesty and in controversial cases editors may wish to consider attribution for opinion. | 1 |
| Anadolu Agency (general topics)(AA) WP:ANADOLU 📌 | | 2019 | 2023 | The 2019 RfC established no consensus on the reliability of Anadolu Agency. Well-established news outlets are normally considered reliable for statements of fact. However, Anadolu Agency is frequently described as a mouthpiece of the Turkish government that engages in propaganda, owing to itsstate-run status.See also:Anadolu Agency (controversial topics, international politics). | 1 2 |
| Anadolu Agency (controversial topics, international politics)(AA) WP:AAPOLITICS 📌 | | 2019 | 2019 | In the 2019 RfC, editors generally agreed that Anadolu Agency is generally unreliable for topics that are controversial or related to international politics.See also:Anadolu Agency (general topics). | 1 2 |
| Ancestry.com WP:ANCESTRY 📌 | | 123456 | 2021 | Ancestry.com is agenealogy site that hosts a database ofprimary source documents including marriage and census records. Some of these sources may be usable underWP:PRIMARY, but secondary sources, where available, are usually preferred; further, seeWP:BLPPRIMARY. Ancestry.com also hostsuser-generated content, which is unreliable. | 1 |
| ANNA News(Abkhazian Network News Agency, Analytical Network News Agency) | | 2022 | 2022 | ANNA News was deprecated in the 2022 RfC. It is a pro-Kremlin news agency that has been described as propaganda and has published fabricated information. | 1 |
| Answers.com(WikiAnswers) | | 1234 | 2010 | Answers.com (previously known as WikiAnswers) is aQ&A site that incorporatesuser-generated content. In the past, Answers.com republished excerpts and summaries oftertiary sources, includingD&B Hoovers,Gale, andHighBeam 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 aWikipedia mirror; using republished Wikipedia content is consideredcircular sourcing. | 1 |
| Anti-Defamation League(ADL) (excluding the Israeli–Palestinian conflict and antisemitism) WP:RSPADL 📌 WP:ADLHSD 📌 | | 2020 2024 | 2024 | There is consensus that outside of the topic of theIsraeli–Palestinian conflict, the ADL is a generally reliable source, including for topics related to hate groups and extremism in the U.S. There is no consensus that ADL must be attributed in all cases, but there is consensus that the labelling of organisations and individuals by the ADL (particularly as antisemitic) should be attributed. Some editors consider the ADL's opinion pieces not reliable, and that they should only be used with attribution. In the 2024 RfC, there was rough consensus that the hate symbol database is reliable for the existence of a symbol and for straightforward facts about it, but not reliable for more complex details, such as symbols' history.In-text attribution to the ADL may be advisable when it is cited in such cases. | 1 2 |
| Anti-Defamation League(ADL) (antisemitism, excluding Israel or Zionism) WP:ADLAS 📌 | | 2020 2024 | 2024 | The ADL can roughly be taken as reliable on the topic of antisemitism when Israel and Zionism are not concerned, and the reliability is a case-by-case matter. There is consensus that the labelling of organisations and individuals by the ADL as antisemitic should beattributed. The ADL has also demonstrated a habit of conflating criticism of the Israeli government's actions with antisemitism. | 1 |
| Anti-Defamation League(ADL) (Israeli–Palestinian conflict, including related antisemitism) WP:ADLPIA 📌 WP:ADLIPA 📌 | | 2024 | 2024 | There is consensus that the ADL is a generally unreliable source for the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, due to significant evidence that the ADL acts as a pro-Israeli advocacy group and has repeatedly published false and misleading statements as fact, un-retracted, regarding the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. The general unreliability of the ADL extends to the intersection of the topics of antisemitism and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. | 1 |
| Antiwar.com | | 1234 | 2011 | There is consensus that Antiwar.com is generally unreliable. Editors consider Antiwar.com to bebiased or opinionated. | 1 2 |
| Aon | | 2022 | 2022 | In a 2022 RfC, there was consensus that Aon is generally reliable for weather-related articles. Editors pointed out that Aon often provides data not found in other sources, and care should be taken when using the source as it may be providing a different estimate than other sources, e.g. total economic damages, rather than property damage. | 1 |
| Apple Daily | | 2020 | 2021 | A 2020 RfC found thatApple Daily was often but not always reliable, and that it may be appropriate to use it in articles about Hong Kong, but subject to editorial judgment, particularly if the topic is controversial and/orApple Daily is the only source for a contested claim. There was concern that historically, it was not necessarily as reliable as it was in 2020.Apple Daily shut down in June 2021; website content is no longer accessible unless archived.[1] Editors with access toDow Jones Factiva can access articles published by them in print between 2012 January 1 and 2018 March 15; simplified Chinese has source code APPLDS and traditional is APPLOT. | 1 |
| Arab News | | 2020 | 2021 | There is consensus thatArab News is a usable source for topics unrelated to theSaudi Arabian government. AsArab News is closely associated with the Saudi Arabian government and is published in a country with lowpress freedom, editors considerArab Newsbiased andnon-independent for Saudi Arabian politics, and recommendattribution for its coverage in this area. Some editors considerArab News unreliable for matters related to the Saudi Arabian government. | 1 |
| Army Recognition WP:ARMYRECOGNITION 📌 | | 12 | 2021 | Army Recognition is a site that reproduces press release material without any original reportage. In at least one example it has copied content without attribution from other sources. Editors allege thatArmy Recognition operates on a pay-for-coverage basis, providing "online marketing and advertising solutions" for the defense industry. This model may raise questions about the impartiality and independence of its content. | 1 2 |
| Ars Technica | | 123 | 2022 | Ars Technica is considered generally reliable for science- and technology-related articles. | 1 2 |
| Asian News International(ANI) WP:RSPANI 📌 | | 2021 | 2021 | Asian News International is an Indiannews agency. For general reporting, Asian News International is considered to be betweenmarginally reliable andgenerally unreliable, with consensus that it is biased and that it should beattributed in-text for contentious claims. For its coverage related to Indian domestic politics, foreign politics, and other topics in which theGovernment of India may have an established stake, there is consensus that Asian News International isquestionable and generally unreliable due to its reported dissemination of pro-government propaganda. | 1 |
| AskMen | | 123456 | 2020 | There is no consensus on the reliability of AskMen.See also:IGN. | 1 |
| Association of Religion Data Archives (ARDA, Pew–Templeton Global Religious Futures) WP:THEARDA 📌 WP:GORDONCONWELL 📌 WP:GLOBALRELIGIOUSFUTURES 📌 | | 2022 | 2022 | ARDA is an archive repository of information pertaining to religion. The 2022 RfC did not gain a consensus on the reliability of ARDA; there was, however, a rough consensus to use the sources with in-text attribution provided that more reliable sources are unavailable. | |
| Associated Press(AP) | | 12[f] | 2024 | The Associated Press is anews 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 2 |
| The Atlantic(The Atlantic Monthly) | | 12345 | 2024 | The Atlantic is considered generally reliable. Editors should beware thatThe Atlantic does not always clearly delineate between reporting and opinion content; opinion pieces, including all articles in the "Ideas" column (theatlantic.com/ideas/), are governed byWP:RSOPINION. | 1 |
| Atlas Obscura "places" articles WP:AOPLACES 📌 | | 1234 | 2023 | Atlas Obscura's "places" articles are user-generated and user-editable with minimal oversight, and the site's terms of use includes disclaimers about user submissions. Many of the "places" articles cite Wikipedia as a source of their information or otherwise lack clear or reliable sourcing. These articles should generally not be referenced on Wikipedia. | 1 |
| Atlas Obscura "articles" articles WP:AOARTICLES 📌 | | 1234 | 2023 | Atlas Obscura's "articles" articles are professionally authored with editor oversight, and generally reliable. However, other areas of the site operate as a commercial travel service vendor, and the site hosts user-generated content in its "places" articles (seeWP:AOPLACES) | 1 |
| The Australian | | 123 | 2024 | The Australian is considered generally reliable. Some editors considerThe Australian to be a partisan source. Opinion pieces are covered byWP:RSOPINION andWP:NEWSBLOG. Several editors expressed concern regarding their coverage of climate change related topics. | 1 |
| Australian Strategic Policy Institute(ASPI) | | 2021 | 2021 | There is consensus that use of Australian Strategic Policy Institute should be evaluated fordue weight and accompanied within text attribution when used. Editors consider the Australian Strategic Policy Institute to be abiased or opinionated source that is reliable in the topic area of Australian defence and strategic issues but recommend care as it is a think tank associated with the defence industry in Australia and the Australian Government. | 1 |
| The A.V. Club | | 1234 | 2023 | The A.V. Club is considered generally reliable for film, music and TV reviews. There is consensus that AI-generated articles are generally unreliable;The A.V. Club's parent company, G/O Media, began releasing such pieces in July 2023, usually under the byline "The A.V. Club Bot".[2] | 1 |
| AVN(Adult Video News,AVN Magazine) | | 2021 | 2021 | AVN is considered generally reliable for the adult industry. Editors should take care to ensure the content is not a republished press release (which is marked as such in search). | 1 |
| Axios | | 12 | 2020 | There is consensus thatAxios is generally reliable. Some editors considerAxios to be abiased or opinionated source.Statements of opinion should beattributed and evaluated fordue weight. | 1 |
| Baidu Baike WP:BAIDUBAIKE 📌 | | 2020 | 2020 | Baidu Baike was deprecated in the 2020 RfC as it is similar to anopen wiki, which is a type ofself-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. TheBaidu 10 Mythical Creatureskuso originated from Baidu Baike. | |
| Ballotpedia WP:BALLOTPEDIA 📌 | | 123 | 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 anopen wiki, but stopped acceptinguser-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."[3] | 1 |
| BBC(British Broadcasting Corporation) WP:RSPBBC 📌 | | 22[g] | 2024 | BBC is a Britishpublicly funded broadcaster. It is considered generally reliable. This includesBBC News, BBC documentaries, and the BBC History site (onBBC Online). However, this excludes BBC projects that incorporateuser-generated content (such ash2g2 and theBBC Domesday Project) and BBC publications with reduced editorial oversight (such asCollective).Statements of opinion should conform to the corresponding guideline. | 1 2 |
| Behind the Voice Actors(BTVA) WP:RSPBTVA 📌 | | 2022 +10[h] | 2024 | There is consensus that Behind the Voice Actors is generally reliable for roles credits. Editors agree that its coverage is routine and does not contribute tonotability. | 1 |
| Bellingcat | | 2019 | 2021 | There is consensus that Bellingcat is generally reliable for news and should preferably be used withattribution. Some editors consider Bellingcat abiased source. | 1 |
| bestgore.com | | 2021 | 2021 | There is consensus that bestgore.com is a shock site with no credibility. It is deprecated and has been added to thespam blacklist. bestgore.com shut down in 2020; website content is no longer accessible unless archived. | 1 |
| Bild WP:BILD 📌 | | 2025 | 2025 | Bild is a German tabloid that has been unfavourably compared toThe Sun, and is considered generally unreliable. Some editors suggest that it should not be used for contentious and/or personal information about living people. Some editors suggest however that its interviews with public figures as well as its sports coverage may be usable depending on context. | 1 |
| Blaze Media(BlazeTV,Conservative Review, CRTV, TheBlaze) WP:BLAZEMEDIA 📌 | | 123 | 2018 | Blaze Media (including TheBlaze) is considered generally unreliable for facts. In some cases, it may be usable forattributed opinions. In 2018, TheBlaze merged withConservative Review (CRTV) to form Blaze Media.[4] | 1 2 |
| Blogger(blogspot.com) WP:BLOGGER 📌 | | 21[i] | 2020 | Blogger is ablog hosting service that owns the blogspot.com domain. As aself-published source, it is considered generally unreliable and should be avoided unless the author is asubject-matter expert or the blog is used foruncontroversial 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 withWP:NEWSBLOG. Blogger should never be used for third-party claims related toliving persons; this includes interviews, as even those cannot be authenticated. | 1 |
| Bloomberg(Bloomberg News,Bloomberg Businessweek) | | 1234 | 2019 | Bloomberg publications, includingBloomberg News andBloomberg Businessweek, are considered generally reliable for news and business topics.See also:Bloomberg profiles. | 1 2 |
| Bloomberg profiles | | 12 | 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 establishnotability. Some editors consider these profiles to be akin toself-published sources.See also:Bloomberg. | 1 |
| Boing Boing | | 123 | 2019 | There is no consensus on the reliability ofBoing Boing. AlthoughBoing Boing is agroup blog, some of its articles are written bysubject-matter experts such asCory Doctorow, who is considered generally reliable forcopyright law. | 1 |
| Breitbart News WP:BREITBART 📌 | | 2018 | 2023 | Due to persistent abuse,Breitbart News is on theWikipedia spam blacklist, and links must bewhitelisted before they can be used. The site has published a number of falsehoods,conspiracy theories, and intentionally misleading stories as fact. The 2018 RfC showed a very clear consensus thatBreitbart News should be deprecated in the same way as theDaily Mail. This does not meanBreitbart 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 aprimary source when attributing opinions, viewpoints, and commentary.Breitbart News has directly attacked anddoxed Wikipedia editors. Posting or linking to another editor's personal information is prohibited under theouting policy, unless the editor is voluntarily disclosing the information on Wikipedia. | 1 2 |
| BroadwayWorld WP:BROADWAYWORLD 📌 | | 1234 | 2023 | BroadwayWorld is considered generally unreliable, as it contains many articles that reproduce press releases, disguising this as authentic journalism. As the site has limited editorial oversight, and the true author of the content of press releases is obscured, this website should generally not be used for facts aboutliving persons. | 1 |
| Burke's Peerage | | 2020 | 2020 | Burke's Peerage is considered generally reliable for genealogy. | 1 |
| Bustle | | 2019 | 2019 | There is consensus that the reliability ofBustle 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 |
| BuzzFeed WP:BUZZFEED 📌 | | 123456789 | 2023 | Editors find the quality of BuzzFeed articles to be highly inconsistent. Respondents to a 2014 survey from thePew Research Center on news sources in America ranked BuzzFeed at the bottom of the list.[5] BuzzFeed may useA/B testing for new articles, which may cause article content to change.[6] BuzzFeed operated a separate news division,BuzzFeed News, which had higher editorial standards and was hosted on a different website.See also:BuzzFeed News. | 1 |
| BuzzFeed News WP:BUZZFEEDNEWS 📌 | | 12[k] | 2023 | There is consensus thatBuzzFeed News is generally reliable.BuzzFeed News operated separately fromBuzzFeed, and most news content originally hosted on BuzzFeed was moved to theBuzzFeed News website in 2018.[7] In light of the staff layoffs at BuzzFeed in January 2019, some editors recommend exercising more caution forBuzzFeed News articles published after this date. The site's opinion pieces should be handled withWP:RSOPINION.BuzzFeed News shut down in May 2023, and its archives remain accessible.[8]See also:BuzzFeed. | 1 2 |
| California Globe | | 2021 | 2021 | There is consensus thatThe California Globe is generally unreliable. Editors note the lack of substantial editorial process, the lack of evidence for fact-checking, and the bias present in the site's material. Editors also note the highly opinionated nature of the site as evidence against its reliability. | 1 |
| The Canary | | 2021 | 2021 | There is consensus thatThe Canary is generally unreliable. Its reporting is sensationalist at times; selective reporting, a left-wing bias, and a poor distinction between editorial and news content were also noted. | 1 |
| Catholic-Hierarchy.org | | 123 | 2025 | There is consensus thatCatholic-Hierarchy.org is generally unreliable. While there is some limitedUSEBYOTHERS, the author is not asubject-matter expert in the field of thehierarchy of the Catholic Church.Catholic-Hierarchy.org is also aself-published source and should never be used for third-partyclaims about living persons. | 1 |
| Cato Institute | | 12 | 2015 | The Cato Institute is considered generally reliable for its opinion. Some editors consider the Cato Institute an authoritative source onlibertarianism in the United States. There is no consensus on whether it is generally reliable on other topics. Most editors consider the Cato Institutebiased or opinionated, so its uses should beattributed. | 1 |
| CBS News(CBS) | | 1234567 | 2023 | CBS News is the news division ofCBS. It is considered generally reliable. Some editors note, however, that its television content may include superficial coverage, which might not qualify underWP:MEDRS. | 1 |
| CelebrityNetWorth(CNW) WP:CELEBRITYNETWORTH 📌 WP:CNW 📌 | | 123456789 | 2018 | There is consensus that CelebrityNetWorth is generally unreliable. CelebrityNetWorth does not disclose its methodology, and its accuracy has been criticized byThe New York Times.[9] | 1 |
| Center for Economic and Policy Research(CEPR) | | 2020 | 2020 | The Center for Economic and Policy Research is aneconomic policythink tank. Though its articles are regularly written by subject-matter experts in economics and are frequently cited by reliable sources, most editors consider the CEPRbiased or opinionated, so its uses should beattributed. | 1 |
| Centre for Research on Globalisation(CRG, Global Research, globalresearch.ca) | | 2019 | 2019 | Due to persistent abuse, Global Research is on theWikipedia spam blacklist, and links must bewhitelisted before they can be used. The Centre for Research on Globalisation is the organization that operates the Global Research website (globalresearch.ca, not to be confused withGlobalSecurity.org). The CRG is considered generally unreliable due to its propagation ofconspiracy theories and lack of editorial oversight. It isbiased or opinionated, and its content is likely to constituteundue weight. As it often coversfringe material,parity of sources should be considered. | 1 2 3 |
| CESNUR(Centro Studi sulle Nuove Religioni, Center for Studies on New Religions,Bitter Winter) WP:CESNUR 📌 | | 2022 | 2022 | CESNUR is anapologia site for new religious movements, and thus is inherently unreliable in its core area due toconflicts of interest. There is also consensus that its content is unreliable on its own merits. CESNUR has an online magazine,Bitter Winter, that is also considered generally unreliable. | 1 2 3 |
| Change.org | | 12 | 2021 | Change.org is a website specializing in the creation of onlinepetitions. As a primary source, it is advised that editors avoid Change.org as a source for certain online petitions, especially if more reliable secondary sources are available. Due to concerns over petitioncanvassing, Change.org is on theWikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. | 1 |
| Check Your Fact WP:CHECKYOURFACT 📌 | | 2024 | 2024 | Check Your Fact is certified by theInternational Fact-Checking Network and considered generally reliable; despite its ownership under the deprecatedDaily Caller, it has an independent newsroom with someuse by others. Editors prefer reliable secondary sources over Check Your Fact when available. | 1 |
| China Daily WP:CHINADAILY 📌 | | 2021 | 2021 | China Daily is a publication owned by theChinese Communist Party. The 2021 RfC found narrow consensus against deprecatingChina Daily, owing to the lack of available usable sources for Chinese topics. There is consensus thatChina Daily may be used, cautiously and with good editorial judgment, as a source for the position of the Chinese authorities and the Chinese Communist Party; as a source for the position ofChina Daily itself; as a source for facts about non-political events in mainland China, while noting that (a)China Daily's interpretation of those facts is likely to contain political spin, and (b)China Daily's omission of details from a story should not be used to determine that such details are untruthful; and, with great caution, as a supplementary (but not sole) source for facts about political events of mainland China. Editors agree that when using this source,context matters a great deal and the facts should be separated fromChina Daily's view about those facts. It is best practice to usein-text attribution andinline citations when sourcing content toChina Daily. | 1 2 3 |
| China Global Television Network(CGTN, CCTV International) WP:CGTN 📌 | | 2020 | 2020 | China Global Television Network was deprecated in the 2020 RfC for publishing false or fabricated information. Many editors consider CGTN a propaganda outlet, and some editors express concern over CGTN'sairing of forced confessions. | 1 |
| The Christian Science Monitor(CSM,CS Monitor) WP:CSMONITOR 📌 | | 20[l] | 2016 | The Christian Science Monitor is considered generally reliable for news. | 1 |
| Climate Feedback | | 1234 | 2020 | Climate Feedback is afact-checking website that is considered generally reliable for topics related toclimate change. It discloses its methodologies, is certified by theInternational Fact-Checking Network, and has been endorsed by other reliable sources. Most editors do not consider Climate Feedback aself-published source due to its high reviewer requirements. | 1 |
| CNET (pre-October 2020) | | 2025 +17[m] | 2025 | CNET is considered generally reliable for its technology-related articles prior to its acquisition byRed Ventures in October 2020. In 2023, Red Ventures began deleting thousands of old CNET articles; website content may no longer be available unless archived.[10] | 1 |
| CNET (October 2020–October 2022) | | 2024 2025 | 2025 | CNET was acquired by digital marketing companyRed Ventures in October 2020, leading to a deterioration in editorial standards. Staff writers were pressured by company executives to publish content more favorably to advertisers in order to benefit Red Ventures' business dealings; this included both news stories and reviews. | 1 |
| CNET (November 2022–present) WP:CNET 📌 | | 2024 2025 | 2025 | Concerns overCNET's advertiser-driven editorial content remain unresolved. Separately, in November 2022, it began deploying an experimental AI tool to rapidly generate articles riddled with factual inaccuracies and affiliate links, with the purpose of increasingSEOrankings. CNET never formally disclosed of its use of AI untilFuturism andThe Verge published reports exposing its actions. An AI tool now announced to be paused wrote more than 70 finance-related articles and published them under the byline "CNET Money Staff", over half of which received corrections after mounting pressure. In August 2024 CNET was purchased byZiff Davis, which may mean that the reasons for considering it unreliable may no longer apply. | 1 |
| CNN(Cable News Network) WP:CNN 📌 WP:RSPCNN 📌 | | 2019 2020 +20[n] | 2024 | There is consensus that news broadcast or published by CNN is generally reliable. However,iReport consists solely ofuser-generated content, and talk show content should be treated asopinion pieces. Some editors consider CNNbiased, though not to the extent that it affects reliability. | 1 |
| Coda Media(Coda Story) | | 2021 | 2021 | A 2021 RfC found consensus that Coda Media is generally reliable for factual reporting. A few editors consider Coda Media abiased source for international politics related to the U.S., as it has received funding from theNational Endowment for Democracy, though not to the extent that it affects reliability. | 1 |
| CoinDesk WP:COINDESK 📌 | | 2018 2019 | 2023 | There is consensus that CoinDesk should not be used to establishnotability for article topics, and that it should be avoided in favor of more mainstream sources. Check CoinDesk articles forconflict of interest disclosures, and verify whether their parent company at the time (previouslyDigital Currency Group, now Bullion) has an ownership stake in a company covered by CoinDesk.[11] | 1 |
| Common Sense Media(CSM) WP:CSM 📌 | | 123 | 2020 | There is consensus that Common Sense Media is generally reliable for entertainment reviews. As an advocacy organization, Common Sense Media isbiased or opinionated, and its statements should generally beattributed. | 1 |
| Consortium News WP:CONSORTIUMNEWS 📌 | | 12345 | 2019 | There is consensus thatConsortium News is generally unreliable. Certain articles (particularly those byRobert Parry) may be consideredself-published, as it is unclear if any independent editorial review occurred. The outlet is known to lean towards uncritically repeating claims that arefringe, demonstrably false, or have been described by mainstream outlets as "conspiracy theories." | 1 |
| The Conversation WP:THECONVERSATION 📌 | | 123 | 2019 | The Conversation publishes articles from academics who aresubject-matter experts. It is generally reliable for subjects in the authors'areas of expertise. Opinions published inThe Conversation should be handled withWP:RSOPINION. | 1 |
| Correo del Orinoco | | 2023 | 2023 | There is consensus thatCorreo del Orinoco is generally unreliable because it is used to amplify misleading and/or false information. Many editors considerCorreo del Orinoco to be used by the Venezuelan government to promulgate propaganda due to its connection to theBolivarian Communication and Information System. | 1 |
| Cosmopolitan | | 12345 | 2019 | There is no consensus on the reliability ofCosmopolitan. It is generally regarded as a situational source, which means context is important. The treatment ofCosmopolitan as a source should be decided on a case-by-case basis, depending on the article and the information to be verified. | 1 |
| CounterPunch WP:COUNTERPUNCH 📌 | | 2021 2022 +12[o] | 2022 | CounterPunch is a left-wing political opinion magazine. Despite the fact that the publication has an editorial board, there is no effective editorial control over the content of the publication, so articles should be treated asself-published sources. As a consequence, the articles should generally be avoided and should not be used to establishnotability unless published by subject-matter experts writing about subjects within their domain of expertise, in which case they may be considered reliable for facts. CitingCounterPunch for third-party claims aboutliving persons isnot allowed. All articles onCounterPunch must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, in particular fordue weight, and opinions must beattributed. Some articles in the publication promote conspiracy theories and historicaldenialism, but there was no consensus to deprecate the outlet based on the most recent RfC. | 1 2 |
| Cracked.com | | 12345 | 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 read and cite that source instead. | 1 |
| The Cradle WP:THECRADLE 📌 | | 2024 | 2024 | The Cradle is an online magazine focusing on West Asia/Middle East-related topics. It was deprecated in the 2024 RfC due to a history of publishingconspiracy theories and wide referencing of other deprecated sources while doing so. Editors considerThe Cradle to have a poor reputation for fact-checking. | 1 |
| Crunchbase WP:CRUNCHBASE 📌 | | 2019 | 2019 | In the 2019 RfC, there was consensus to deprecate Crunchbase, but also to continue allowingexternal links to the website. A significant proportion of Crunchbase's data isuser-generated content. The technical details are that it is only listed onUser:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList, so citations to Crunchbase are only automatically reverted if they are inref tags in addition to meeting the standard criteria. | 1 |
| The Daily Beast WP:DAILYBEAST 📌 | | 123456 | 2023 | There is no consensus on the reliability ofThe Daily Beast. Most editors considerThe Daily Beast abiased or opinionated source. Some editors advise particular caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related toliving persons. | 1 |
| The Daily Caller WP:DAILYCALLER 📌 | | 2019 | 2019 | The Daily Caller was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the site publishes false or fabricated information. | 1 2 |
| The Daily Dot WP:DAILYDOT 📌 | | 2022 +13[p] | 2022 | There is no consensus regarding the general reliability ofThe Daily Dot, though it is considered fine for citing non-contentious claims of fact. Some editors have objected to its tone or consider it to bebiased or opinionated; there is community consensus that attribution should be used in topics where the source is known to be biased or when the source is used to support contentious claims of fact. Consider whether content from this publication constitutesdue weight before citing it in an article. | 1 |
| Daily Express WP:DAILYEXPRESS 📌 | | 123456 | 2020 | TheDaily Express is atabloid with a number of similarities to theDaily Mail. It is considered generally unreliable. | 1 2 |
| Daily Kos WP:DAILYKOS 📌 | | 123 | 2017 | There is consensus that Daily Kos should generally be avoided as a source, especially for controversial political topics where better sources are available. As anactivism blog that publishesuser-generated content with aprogressivepoint of view, many editors consider Daily Kos to inappropriately blur news reporting and opinion. | 1 |
| Daily Mail(MailOnline) WP:DAILYMAIL 📌 WP:RSPDM 📌 | | 2017 2019 2020 | 2024 | In the 2017 RfC, theDaily Mail was the first source to be deprecated on Wikipedia, and the decision was challenged and reaffirmed in the 2019 RfC. There is consensus that theDaily Mail (including its online version,MailOnline) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is generally prohibited, especially when other sources exist that are more reliable. As a result, theDaily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles. TheDaily Mail has a "reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication". TheDaily Mail may be used in rare cases in anabout-self fashion. Some editors regard theDaily Mail as reliable historically, so old articles may be used in a historical context. (Note that dailymail.co.uk is not trustworthy as a source of past content that was printed in theDaily Mail.) The restriction is often incorrectly interpreted as a "ban" on theDaily Mail. The deprecation includes other editions of the UKDaily Mail, such as the Irish and Scottish editions. The UKDaily Mail is not to be confused withother publications namedDaily Mail that are unaffiliated with the UK paper. The dailymail.com domain was previously used by the unaffiliatedCharleston Daily Mail, and reference links to that publication are still present. | |
| Daily Mirror(Mirror) WP:DAILYMIRROR 📌 | | 12345 | 2020 | TheDaily Mirror, also known just as theMirror, is atabloid newspaper that publishestabloid journalism. There is no consensus on whether its reliability is comparable to that of British tabloids such as theDaily Mail andThe Sun. | 1 |
| Daily NK WP:DAILYNK 📌 | | 2022 | 2022 | TheDaily NK is anonline newspaper based inSouth Korea that reports on stories based inside ofNorth Korea. There is no consensus as to if it should be deprecated or used with attribution. There is a consensus that this source, as well as all other sources reporting on North Korea, is generally unreliable. However, due to a paucity of readily accessible information on North Korea, as well as a perception thatDaily NK is not more unreliable than other sources on the topic, it can be used as a source, albeit with great caution. | 1 |
| Daily Sabah WP:DAILYSABAH 📌 | | 2020 | 2020 | Daily Sabah is considered to be a propaganda outlet that publishes pro-Turkish government news which aims to strengthenErdoğan's rule, spreadWesternophobia, and promote Turkish government policies. Editors also pointed out that Daily Sabah publishes unfactual information such asArmenian genocide denial, and mispresenting statements. Some editors consider it to be reliable enough to cite POV of the Turkish government with in-text attribution, and uncontroversial Turkey-related events. | 1 |
| Daily Star (UK) WP:DAILYSTAR 📌 | | 2020 | 2020 | TheDaily Star was deprecated in the 2020 RfC due to its reputation for publishing false or fabricated information. | 1 2 |
| The Daily Telegraph (UK) (excluding transgender topics)(The Telegraph,The Sunday Telegraph) WP:TELEGRAPH 📌 | | 2022 +22[s] | 2024 | There is consensus thatThe Daily Telegraph (also known asThe Telegraph) is generally reliable. Some editors believe thatThe Daily Telegraph isbiased or opinionated for politics. Unrelated toThe Daily Telegraph (Sydney). | 1 |
| The Daily Telegraph (UK) (transgender topics)(The Telegraph,The Sunday Telegraph) | | 2024 | 2024 | In regards to transgender issues, there isno consensus on the reliability ofThe Daily Telegraph. Editors considerThe Telegraphbiased or opinionated on the topic, and its statements should beattributed. | 1 |
| The Daily Wire WP:DAILYWIRE 📌 | | 2021 | 2021 | There is a strong consensus thatThe Daily Wire is generally unreliable for factual reporting. Detractors note the site's tendency to share stories that are taken out of context or are improperly verified.[12][13] | 1 |
| Deadline Hollywood WP:RSPDEADLINE 📌 | | 123456 | 2019 | Deadline Hollywood is considered generally reliable for entertainment-related articles. | 1 2 |
| Debrett's | | 2020 | 2020 | There is consensus that Debrett's is reliable for genealogical information. However, their defunct "People of Today" section is considered to be not adequatelyindependent as the details were solicited from the subjects. Editors have also raised concerns that this section included paid coverage. | 1 |
| Democracy Now! | | 12345 | 2013 | There is no consensus on the reliability ofDemocracy Now!. Most editors considerDemocracy Now! apartisan source whose statements should beattributed.Syndicated content published byDemocracy Now! should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher. | 1 |
| Den of Geek | | 12 | 2020 | There is a rough consensus thatDen of Geek is generally reliable for entertainment-related topics. | 1 |
| Deseret News | | 1234 | 2022 | TheDeseret News is considered generally reliable for local news. It is owned by a subsidiary ofThe Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and there is no consensus on whether theDeseret News isindependent of theLDS Church. The publication's statements on topics regarding the LDS Church should beattributed. TheDeseret News includes asupplement, theChurch News, which is considered aprimary source as an official publication of the LDS Church. | 1 2 |
| Destructoid | | ABCDE | 2017 | There is a consensus thatDestructoid is marginally reliable for topics on video games. As a site featuring articles written mainly by freelance journalists, consider whether the author is trusted before usingDestructoid as a source in articles.Destructoid may still be used for video game reviews given that attribution is provided. | 1 |
| Deutsche Welle(DW,DW-TV) | | 123 | 2022 | Deutsche Welle is a Germanstate-ownedinternational broadcaster. It is considered generally reliable. Some editors consider that the quality of DW depends on the language edition. | 1 |
| Dexerto WP:DEXERTO 📌 | | 2019 2023 | 2023 | Dexerto is a website covering gaming news, internet personalities, and entertainment. Editors agree that it is a tabloid publication that rarely engages in serious journalism; while it may be used as a source on a case-by-case basis (with some editors arguing for the reliability of itsesports coverage), it is usually better to find an alternative source, and it is rarely suitable for use onBLPs or to establishnotability. | 1 |
| Digital Spy | | 12345 | 2012 | There is consensus that Digital Spy is generally reliable for entertainment and popular culture. Consider whether the information from this source constitutesdue or undue weight. | 1 2 |
| Digital Trends | | 1 | 2023 | There is consensus that Digital Trends is generally reliable due to its editorial standards and reputation. This does not apply to sponsored content, which is marked with fine print below the headline image's caption. Some editors expressed concern over the site's connection to Valnet, which runs several content farms. | 1 |
| The Diplomat WP:THEDIPLOMAT 📌 | | 12 | 2020 | There is consensus thatThe Diplomat is generally reliable. Opinion pieces should be evaluated byWP:RSOPINION andWP:NEWSBLOG. Some editors have expressed concern on their reliability for North Korea-related topics. | 1 |
| Discogs WP:DISCOGS 📌 WP:RSDISCOGS 📌 | | 2019 2024 | 2024 | The content on Discogs isuser-generated, and is therefore generally unreliable. There was consensus against deprecating Discogs in a 2019 RfC, as editors noted that, although it should not be cited,external links to the site may be appropriate. | 1 |
| Distractify WP:DISTRACTIFY 📌 | | 123 | 2023 | There is consensus thatDistractify is generally unreliable. Editors believeDistractify runs run-of-the-mill gossip that is unclearly eitheruser-generated or written by staff members. Editors should especially refrain from using it inBLPs. | 1 |
| The Dorchester Review | | 2024 | 2024 | There is consensusThe Dorchester Review is generally unreliable, as it is not peer reviewed by the wider academic community. It has a poor reputation for fact-checking and lacks an editorial team. The source may still be used in some circumstances e.g. for uncontroversial self-descriptions, and content authored by established subject-matter experts. | 1 |
| Dotdash Meredith(About.com, The Balance,Lifewire, The Spruce, ThoughtCo, TripSavvy,Verywell) | | 2018 +17[t] | 2020 | Dotdash Meredith (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 asself-published sources, and only using articles published by established experts. About.com also previously served as aWikipedia mirror; using republished Wikipedia content is consideredcircular sourcing. In 2017, the About.com website became defunct and some of its content was moved to Dotdash Meredith's current website brands.[14][15] Due to persistent abuse, verywellfamily.com, verywellhealth.com, and verywellmind.com are on theWikipedia spam blacklist, and links must bewhitelisted before they can be used.See also:Investopedia. | |
| EADaily(EurAsia Daily) WP:EADAILY 📌 | | 2023 | 2023 | EADaily frequently produces false claims to advance their Kremlin-aligned viewpoints and was deprecated following a 2023 RfC. | 1 |
| The Economist | | 2022 | 2024 | Most editors considerThe Economist generally reliable. Distinctively, its news articles appear without bylines and are written in editorial voice. Within these articles, Wikipedia editors should use their judgement to discern factual content – which can be generally relied upon – from analytical content, which should be used in accordance with theguideline on opinion in reliable sources. Its pseudonymous commentary columns and other opinion pieces should also be handled according to this guideline. | 1 |
| The Electronic Intifada(EI) | | 2024 | 2024 | There is consensus thatThe Electronic Intifada is generally unreliable with respect to its reputation for accuracy, fact-checking, and error-correction. Almost all editors considerThe Electronic Intifada abiased and opinionated source, so their statements should beattributed. | 1 |
| Encyclopædia Britannica(Encyclopædia Britannica Online) WP:BRITANNICA 📌 | | 15[u] | 2022 | There is no consensus regarding the reliability of theEncyclopædia Britannica (including its online edition,Encyclopædia Britannica Online). Its editorial process includes fact checking and publishing corrections.Encyclopædia Britannica is atertiary source. Some online entries are written by subject matter experts, while others are written by freelancers or editors, and entries should be evaluated on an individual basis. Editors prefer reliablesecondary sources over theEncyclopædia Britannica when available. From 2009 to 2010, theEncyclopædia Britannica Online accepted a small number of content submissions from the general public. 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 |
| Encyclopædia Iranica | | 12345 | 2022 | TheEncyclopædia Iranica is considered generally reliable for Iran-related topics. | 1 |
| Encyclopaedia Metallum(Metal Archives,MA) WP:METALLUM 📌 | | 2025 | 2025 | Encyclopaedia Metallum was deprecated by unanimous consensus in the 2025 RfC as a site rife withuser-generated content and thus no hope of reliability. | 1 |
| Encyclopedia Astronautica | | 2023 | 2023 | Encyclopedia Astronautica is a website on space history. A 2023 RfC found no consensus on the reliability of the site. There appears to be a consensus that this is a valuable resource, but it lacks editorial oversight, contains errors, and is no longer updated. Caution needs to taken in using this source. | 1 |
| Engadget | | 1 | 2012 | Engadget is considered generally reliable for technology-related articles. Its statements should beattributed. | 1 |
| Entertainment Weekly(EW) | | 123 | 2018 | Entertainment Weekly is considered generally reliable for entertainment-related articles. There is no consensus on whether it is reliable for other topics. | 1 |
| Entrepreneur(Entrepreneur India) | | 2020 | 2021 | There is no consensus for the reliability ofEntrepreneur Magazine, although there is a consensus that "contributor" pieces in the publication should be treated asself-published, similar toForbes.com contributors. Editors did not provide much evidence of fabrication in their articles, but were concerned that its coverage tends towardchurnalism and may include improperly disclosed paid pieces. | 1 |
| The Epoch Times(New Tang Dynasty Television,Vision Times,Vision China Times) WP:EPOCHTIMES 📌 | | 2019 | 2022 | The Epoch Times was deprecated in the 2019 RfC. Most editors classifyThe Epoch Times as an advocacy group for theFalun Gong, and consider the publication abiased or opinionated source that frequently publishesconspiracy theories as fact. | |
| Ethnicity of Celebs | | 1234 | 2024 | There is consensus that Ethnicity of Celebs (ethnicelebs.com) is generally unreliable asuser-generated content with no claim of accuracy or fact-checking. | 1 |
| The EurAsian Times WP:EURASIANTIMES 📌 | | 123 | 2024 | The EurAsian Times is an Indo-Canadian news portal, considered to be generally unreliable for a lack of fact-checking and accuracy, usually containing churnalism or otherwise sensationalist and extraordinary claims. | 1 |
| Eurogamer(USgamer) | | 12 | 2023 | There is a consensus thatEurogamer is generally reliable for topics on video games. | |
| Evening Standard(London Evening Standard) WP:THESTANDARD 📌 WP:STANDARDUK 📌 | | 123456 | 2018 | There is no consensus on the reliability of theEvening Standard. Despite being a free newspaper, it is generally considered more reliable than most British tabloids andmiddle-market newspapers. | 1 |
| Examiner.com | | 2009 | 2014 | Due to persistent abuse, Examiner.com is on theWikipedia spam blacklist, and links must bewhitelisted before they can be used. Examiner.com is considered aself-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 byThe San Francisco Examiner, which has moved to a different domain. Examiner.com was shut down in 2016; website content is no longer accessible unless archived. | 1 |
| Facebook(Meta) WP:RSPFB 📌 WP:RSPFACEBOOK 📌 | | 2020 +27[v] | 2021 | Facebook is considered generally unreliable because it is aself-published source with no editorial oversight. In the 2020 RfC, there was consensus to add anedit filter to warn users who attempt to cite Facebook as a source, and no consensus on whether Facebook citations should be automatically reverted withXLinkBot. | 1 |
| Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting(FAIR) | | 2010 | 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 supportexceptional claims regardingliving persons. Most editors consider FAIR abiased or opinionated source whose statements should beattributed and generally treated asopinions. | 1 |
| FamilySearch | | 123456 | 2018 | FamilySearch operates agenealogy site that incorporates a large amount ofuser-generated content. Editors see no evidence that FamilySearch performs fact-checking, and believe that the site has a questionable reputation for accuracy. FamilySearch also hostsprimary source documents, such as birth certificates, which may be usable in limited situations, as well as a large collection of digitized books, which should be evaluated on their own for reliability. When using primary source documents from FamilySearch, followWP:BLPPRIMARY and avoid interpreting them withoriginal research. | 1 |
| Famous Birthdays WP:FAMOUSBIRTHDAYS 📌 WP:FAMOUS BIRTHDAYS 📌 | | 2019 | 2019 | Due to persistent abuse, Famous Birthdays is on theWikipedia spam blacklist, and links must bewhitelisted before they can be used. There is consensus that Famous Birthdays is generally unreliable. Famous Birthdays does not provide sources for its content, claim to have an editorial team, or claim to perform fact-checking. Do not use this site for information regardingliving persons. | 1 |
| Fandom wikis(Wikia, Wikicities) WP:FANDOM 📌 WP:RSPWIKIA 📌 | | 1234567 | 2019 | Fandom (formerly Wikia and Wikicities) wikis are considered generally unreliable becauseopen wikis areself-published sources. Although citing Wikia as a source is against policy, copying Fandom content into Wikipedia is permissible if it is published under a compatible license (some wikis may use licenses like CC BY-NC and CC BY-NC-ND, which are incompatible). Use the{{Fandom content}} template to provide the necessary attribution in these cases, and ensure the article meets Wikipedia'spolicies and guidelines after copying. | |
| Far Out | | 1 | 2025 | Far Out is considered generally unreliable as achurnalism outlet that appears to engage incircular sourcing. | 1 |
| The Federalist | | 2021 | 2021 | The Federalist is generally unreliable for facts due to itspartisan nature and its promotion ofconspiracy theories. However, it may be usable forattributed opinions. | 1 |
| FilmAffinity | | 1 | 2018 | FilmAffinity is considered generally unreliable, as the site mostly consists ofuser-generated content. UnlikeIMDb, it is advised that editors avoid the use of FilmAffinity as an external link. | 1 |
| Financial Times(FT) | | 12345678 | 2018 | TheFinancial Times is considered generally reliable. | 1 |
| Find a Grave WP:RSPFINDAGRAVE 📌 | | 123456 | 2021 | The content on Find a Grave isuser-generated,[16] and is therefore considered generally unreliable. Links to Find a Gravemay sometimes be included in theexternal links section of articles, when the site offers valuable additional content, such as images not permitted for use on Wikipedia. Take care that the Find a Grave page does not itself contain prohibited content, such ascopyright violations. | 1 |
| Findmypast | | 12345 | 2019 | Findmypast is agenealogy site that hosts transcribedprimary source documents, which is covered underWP:BLPPRIMARY. The site'sbirth anddeath certificate records include the event's date of registration, not the date of the event itself. Editors caution against interpreting the documents withoriginal research and note that the transcription process may introduce errors. Findmypast also hostsuser-generated family trees, which are unreliable.The Wikipedia Library previouslyoffered access to Findmypast. | 1 2 |
| Flags of the World(FOTW) WP:FOTW 📌 | | 1234 | 2013 | Flags of the World has been written off as an unreliable source in general. Although some of its pages might refer to reliable sources, it is self-published content without editorial oversight, and the hosts "disclaim any responsibility about the veracity and accuracy of the contents of the website." | 1 2 |
| Flickr WP:RSPFLICKR 📌 | | 123 | 2020 | Most photos on Flickr are anonymous,self-published, and unverifiable, and should not be used at all for verifying information in articles (although properly-licensed photos from Flickrcan be used toillustrate articles). Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability. Note that onecannot make interpretations from Flickr photos, even from verified sources, because that isoriginal research. | 1 |
| Forbes WP:FORBES 📌 | | 10[w] | 2024 | 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. Per below, this excludes articles written byForbes.com contributors (or "Senior Contributors") andForbes Advisor. | 1 |
| Forbes.com contributors WP:FORBESCON 📌 | | 19[x] | 2025 | Most content on Forbes.com is written bycontributors or "Senior Contributors" with minimal editorial oversight, and is generally unreliable. Editors show consensus for treating Forbes.com contributor articles asself-published sources, unless the article was written by asubject-matter expert. Forbes.com contributor articles should never be used forthird-party claims aboutliving persons. Forbes Councils, being pay-to-publish and similarly lacking oversight, also fall into this category. Articles that have also been published in the print edition ofForbes are excluded, and are consideredgenerally reliable. Check thebyline to determine whether an article is written by a "Forbes Staff" member, "Contributor", "Senior Contributor", or "Subscriber". In addition, check underneath the byline to see whether it was published in a print issue ofForbes. Previously, Forbes.com contributor articles could have been identified by theirURL beginning in "forbes.com/sites"; the URL no longer distinguishes them, asForbes staff articles have also been moved under "/sites".See also:Forbes. | 1 |
| Forbes Advisor | | 2021 | 2021 | Forbes Advisor articles do not differentiate advertisements from normal content and contain a disclaimer thatdoes not and cannot guarantee that any information provided is complete and makes no representations or warranties in connection thereto, nor to the accuracy or applicability thereof. Such articles can be told apart fromForbes content by having "Forbes ADVISOR" in the header and having URLs that start with "forbes.com/advisor". | 1 |
| Fox News[y] (news excluding politics and science) WP:FOXNEWS 📌 | | 2010 2020 2023 +14[z] | 2024 | Historically, there has been consensus that Fox News is generally reliable for news coverage on topics other than politics and science. However, many editors expressed concerns about the reliability of Fox News for any topic in a 2023 RFC. No formal consensus was reached on the matter, though.See also:Fox News (politics and science),Fox News (talk shows). | 1 2 |
| Fox News[y] (politics and science) WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS 📌 | | 2010 2020 2022 2023 +27[aa] | 2024 | There is consensus Fox News is generally unreliable for the reporting of politics, especially from November 2020 onwards. On the matter of science, and on the matter of pre-November 2020 politics, there is a consensus that the reliability of Fox News is unclear and that additional considerations apply to its use. As a result, Fox News is considered marginally reliable and generally does not qualify as a "high-quality source" for the purpose of substantiating exceptional claims in these topic areas. Editors perceive Fox News to bebiased or opinionated for politics; usein-text attribution for opinions.See also:Fox News (news excluding politics and science),Fox News (talk shows). | 1 |
| Fox News[y] (talk shows) | | 123456789 | 2024 | Fox News talk shows, includingHannity,Tucker Carlson Tonight,The Ingraham Angle, andFox & Friends, should not be used for statements of fact but can sometimes be used forattributedopinions.See also:Fox News (news excluding politics and science),Fox News (politics and science). | 1 |
| FrontPage Magazine(FPM, FrontPageMag.com) WP:FPM 📌 | | 2020 | 2022 | In the 2020 RfC, there was unanimous consensus to deprecateFrontPage Magazine. Editors consider the publication generally unreliable, and believe that its opinions should be assigned little to noweight. The publication is consideredbiased or opinionated. | 1 2 |
| Game Developer(Gamasutra) | | 12 | 2020 | Game Developer is considered generally reliable for subjects related to video games. | 1 2 |
| Game Informer | | 12 | 2021 | Game Informer is considered generally reliable for video games. Originally shut down byGameStop in August 2024 with website content no longer accessible unless archived,Neill Blomkamp's companyGunzilla Games purchased the brand and site, which went back up in March 2025, with all staff returning from time at closing, and an aim for the publication to retain total editorial independence. | 1 |
| GameSpot | | 16[ab] | 2024 | GameSpot is considered generally reliable for topics on video games. The site's forum content qualifies asuser-generated content and thus generally unreliable. Some editors have expressed concerns that release date information may not be reliable due to the site sharing a database withGameFAQs. Some older articles released in the 1990s may have incorrect publication dates. | 1 2 |
| The Gateway Pundit(TGP) | | 2019 | 2019 | The Gateway Pundit was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the site is unacceptable as a source. It is unreliable for statements of fact, and given to publishing hoax articles and reporting conspiracy theories as fact. | 1 |
| Gawker WP:GAWKER 📌 | | 2019 | 2019 | Gawker (2002–2016) was a 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 constituteundue weight, especially when the subject is aliving 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. In 2021, the publication was relaunched under Bustle Digital Group, and subsequently closed in 2023. The second incarnation has not been discussed at RSN. | 1 |
| Gazeta Wyborcza | | 12 | 2021 | There is consensus thatGazeta Wyborcza is generally reliable. Some editors express concern about its sensationalist tendency in recent years. | 1 |
| GB News WP:GBNEWS 📌 | | 1234 | 2024 | There is consensus that GB News is generally unreliable. | 1 2 |
| Genealogy.eu | | 2025 | 2025 | Genealogy.eu (genealogy.euweb.cz) was deprecated in the 2025 RfC due to persistent misuse. It is theself-published work of a single non-expert (Marek Miroslav) and is not considered reliable. | 1 2 |
| Geni.com | | 2025 | 2025 | Geni.com was deprecated in the 2025 RfC due to its persistent misuse and limited utility. Geni.com is anopen wiki, which is a type ofself-published source.Primary source documents from Geni.com may be usable in rare circumstances, but editors should be careful to comply with policies onoriginal research anddue weight. | 1 |
| Genius(Rap Genius) WP:GENIUS 📌 | | 12 | 2019 | Song lyrics, annotations and descriptions on Genius are mostlyuser-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 falls underWP:BLPSELFPUB, and usage of such commentary should conform to that policy. | 1 2 |
| Geographic Names Information System(GNIS) (names and locations) | | 2021 | 2022 | The Geographic Names Information System is a United States-based geographical database. It is generally reliable for its place names and locations/coordinates. Editors should take care that GNIS uses adifferent convention for its coordinates, using a particular feature of a location rather than the geometric center that most WikiProjects use. | 1 |
| Geographic Names Information System(GNIS) (feature classes) | | 2021 | 2021 | The Geographic Names Information System is a United States-based geographical database. It is generally unreliable for its feature classes and it should not be used to determine thenotability of geographic features as it does not meet thelegal recognition requirement. | 1 |
| GEOnet Names Server(GNS) (names and locations) | | 2021 | 2021 | The GEOnet Names Server is a United States-based geographical database that covers non-US countries. It is considered to be close to generally reliable for its place names and locations/coordinates, though there are concerns that GNS may not always be accurate and sometimes report the existence of places that do not even exist. Editors are advised to exercise caution when using it. | 1 |
| GEOnet Names Server(GNS) (feature classes) | | 2021 | 2021 | The GEOnet Names Server is a United States-based geographical database that covers non-US countries. It is generally unreliable for its feature classes and it should not be used to determine thenotability of geographic features as it does not meet thelegal recognition requirement. | 1 |
| Gizmodo WP:GIZMODO 📌 | | 1234 | 2023 | There is consensus thatGizmodo is generally reliable for technology, popular culture, and entertainment. There is no consensus on whether it is generally reliable for controversial statements. There is consensus that AI-generated articles are generallyunreliable;Gizmodo's parent company, G/O Media, began releasing such pieces in July 2023, usually under the byline "Gizmodo Bot".[17] | 1 |
| GLAAD | | 12 | 2024 | GLAAD is generally considered reliable for their area of expertise on LGBTQ topics. Some editors consider GLAADbiased or opinionated, so its uses should beattributed. | 1 |
| Global Times(Huanqiu Shibao) WP:GLOBALTIMES 📌 | | 2020 | 2021 | TheGlobal Times is atabloid owned by theChinese Communist Party. It was deprecated near-unanimously in a 2020 RfC which found that it publishes false or fabricated information, including pro-Chinese government propaganda and conspiracy theories. As with other Chinese news sites, theGlobal Times website may host announcements from government agencies not written by the tabloid. Authors are advised to find alternate web pages with the same content. | 1 2 |
| GlobalSecurity.org WP:GLOBALSECURITY 📌 | | 2022 +11[ac] | 2022 | GlobalSecurity.org is an unreliable user-contributed and scraper site given to plagiarism. In the 2022 RfC, a slight majority of editors held that globalsecurity.org should be regarded as generally unreliable, with a significant minority arguing for deprecation. The site should not be used to back factual claims on Wikipedia. GlobalSecurity.org should not be confused withglobalresearch.ca. | 1 |
| The Globe and Mail | | 2021 | 2021 | In a 2021 RfC, editors found a strong consensus thatThe Globe and Mail is generally reliable for news coverage and is considered anewspaper of record. | 1 |
| GoFundMe(YouCaring) | | 2020 | 2020 | GoFundMe is acrowdfunding website specializing in funding for certain life events. As a primary source, it should usually be avoided for topics involving crowdfunding campaigns where better sources are available. The 2020 RfC gained a consensus for GoFundMe to be placed on theWikipedia spam blacklist; links must be whitelisted before they can be used. In 2018, crowdfunding siteYouCaring was acquired by GoFundMe; YouCaring's content is no longer accessible unless archived. | 1 2 |
| Goodreads WP:GOODREADS 📌 | | 12 | 2018 | Goodreads is asocial cataloging site comprisinguser-generated content. As aself-published source, Goodreads is considered generally unreliable. | 1 |
| Google Maps(Google Street View) WP:GOOGLEMAPS 📌 | | 1234567 | 2022 | 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 preferred over Google Maps and Google Street View. It can also be difficult or impossible to determine the veracity of past citations, since Google Maps data is not publicly archived, and may be removed or replaced as soon as it is not current. Inferring information solely from Street View pictures may be consideredoriginal research. Note that due torestrictions on geographic data in China,OpenStreetMap coordinates for places inmainland 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 2 |
| GQ(GQ Magazine) | | 12 | 2019 | There is consensus that GQ is generally reliable. It is noted by editors for having quality editorial oversight for non-contentious topics. | 1 2 |
| The Grayzone WP:GRAYZONE 📌 | | 2020 | 2020 | The Grayzone was deprecated in the 2020 RfC. There is consensus thatThe Grayzone publishes false or fabricated information. Some editors describeThe Grayzone asMax Blumenthal's blog, and question the website's editorial oversight. | 1 |
| The Green Papers | | 2020 | 2020 | There is no consensus on the reliability ofThe Green Papers. As aself-published source that publishesUnited States election results, some editors question the site's editorial oversight. | 1 |
| The Guardian(TheGuardian.com,The Manchester Guardian,The Observer) WP:GUARDIAN 📌 WP:THEGUARDIAN 📌 | | 20[ad] | 2024 | There is consensus thatThe Guardian is generally reliable.The Guardian's op-eds should be handled withWP:RSOPINION. Some editors believeThe Guardian isbiased or opinionated for politics.See also:The Guardian blogs. | 1 2 3 |
| The Guardian blogs | | 10[ae] | 2020 | Most editors say thatThe Guardian blogs should be treated asnewspaper blogs oropinion 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 anon-blog article.See also:The Guardian. | 1 2 3 |
| Guido Fawkes | | 1234 | 2020 | The Guido Fawkes website (order-order.com) is considered generally unreliable because it is aself-published blog. It may be used for uncontroversial descriptions of itself and its own content according toWP:ABOUTSELF, but not for claims related toliving persons. | 1 |
| Guinness World Records | | 12345 | 2020 | There is consensus that world records verified byGuinness World Records should not be used to establish notability. Editors have expressed concern that post-2008 records include paid coverage. | 1 |
| Haaretz(Ḥadashot Ha'aretz) WP:HAARETZ 📌 | | 10[af] | 2021 | Haaretz is considered generally reliable. Some editors believe thatHaaretz reports with a political slant, particularly with respect to theArab–Israeli conflict, which makes itbiased or opinionated. The publication's opinion pieces should be handled withthe appropriate guideline. | 1 2 |
| Hansard(UK Parliament transcripts,House of Commons,House of Lords) | | 1234 | 2019 | As a transcript of parliament proceedings in the United Kingdom,Hansard is aprimary source and its statements should beattributed to whoever made them.Hansard is considered generally reliable for the British parliamentary proceedings and British government statements. It is not considered reliable as asecondary source as it merely contains the personal opinions of whoever is speaking in Parliament that day, and is subject toParliamentary privilege.Hansard is not a word-for-word transcript and may omit repetitions and redundancies. | |
| Hardcore Gaming 101 | | 12 | 2018 | There is a rough consensus thatHardcore Gaming 101 is generally reliable for topics on video games, especially articles written by Kurt Kalata or John Szczepaniak. Exercise caution when citing articles written by any other author, especially in older publications. | 1 |
| Healthline WP:HEALTHLINE 📌 | | 2023 | 2023 | Healthline is a medical resource that is substantially written by non-expert freelance writers and reviewed by non-expert advisors. The content is frequently incorrect misinformation, sometimes dangerously so. Due to the heightened requirements forbiomedical andmedical sources on Wikipedia, the consensus of editors in the 2023 RfC was to deprecate Healthline as an unusable source that cannot meetWP:MEDRS and to blacklist Healthline for the safety and well-being of our readers. References to Healthline should be removed from Wikipedia. | 1 |
| Heat Street | | 12 | 2017 | AlthoughHeat Street was owned byDow Jones & Company, a usually reputable publisher, many editors note thatHeat Street does not clearly differentiate between its news articles and opinion. There is consensus thatHeat Street is apartisan source. Some editors considerHeat Street'sopinion pieces and news articles written by its staff to be usable with attribution, thoughdue weight must be considered becauseHeat Street covers many political topics not as talked about in higher-profile sources. | 1 |
| Heavy.com WP:HEAVY.COM 📌 | | 123 | 2022 | 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 read and cite the original source instead. | 1 |
| The Heritage Foundation(The Daily Signal) | | 2025 | 2025 | Due to security concerns, The Heritage Foundation is on theWikipedia spam blacklist: there is evidence that the group has planned todoxx Wikipedia editors, and links to it should be bypassed orwhitelisted. Editors who are victimized by doxxing tactics mayrequest assistance from the Wikimedia Foundation, although support is not guaranteed. The Heritage Foundation is an American conservative think tank; editors have found that it promotes disinformation. Heritage and its then-publicationThe Daily Signal were found generally unreliable due to the presumption of unreliability forthink tanks and reporting such asclimate change denial; the 2025 RfC deprecated Heritage. However, The Daily Signal was spun off from the Heritage Foundation in June 2024, and the 2025 RfC close did not address its reliability or functional independence. | 1 |
| The Hill WP:THEHILL 📌 | | 10[ag] | 2019 | The Hill is considered generally reliable for American politics. The publication'sopinion pieces should be handled with the appropriate guideline. The publication'scontributor pieces, labeled in theirbylines, receive minimal editorial oversight and should be treated as equivalent toself-published sources. | 1 |
| The Hindu WP:THEHINDU 📌 | | 1234 | 2022 | There is consensus thatThe Hindu is generally reliable and should be treated as anewspaper of record. The publication'sopinion pieces should be handled with the appropriate guideline. | 1 |
| HispanTV WP:HISPANTV 📌 | | 2019
| 2019 | HispanTV was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed overwhelming consensus that the TV channel is generally unreliable and sometimes broadcasts outright fabrications. Editors listed multiple examples of HispanTV broadcastingconspiracy theories andIranian propaganda. | 1 2 |
| History(The History Channel) WP:RSPHISTORY 📌 | | 123 | 2021 | Most editors considerThe History Channel generally unreliable due to its poor reputation for accuracy and its tendency to broadcast programs that promoteconspiracy theories. | 1 |
| The Hollywood Reporter(THR) WP:THR 📌 | | 12345 | 2018 | There is consensus thatThe 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 |
| Hope not Hate(Searchlight) | | 2018 | 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 abiased and opinionated source and their statements should beattributed. | 1 2 |
| HuffPost (excluding politics)(The Huffington Post) WP:HUFF 📌 WP:HUFFPO 📌 WP:HUFFPOST 📌 | | 2020 +13[ah] | 2021 | A 2020 RfC foundHuffPost staff writers fairly reliable for factual reporting on non-political topics, but notes that they may give prominence to topics that support their politicalbias and less prominence to, or omit, things that contradict it.HuffPost's reliability has increased since 2012; articles before 2012 are less reliable and should be treated with more caution.HuffPost usesclickbait headlines to attract attention to its articles, thus the body text of anyHuffPost article is considered more reliable than itsheadline.See also:HuffPost (politics),HuffPost contributors. | |
| HuffPost (politics)(The Huffington Post) WP:HUFFPOLITICS 📌 | | 2020 +11[ai] | 2024 | In the 2020 RfC, there was no consensus onHuffPost staff writers' reliability for political topics. The community considersHuffPost openlybiased on American politics. There is no consensus on its reliability for international politics.See also:HuffPost (excluding politics),HuffPost contributors. | |
| HuffPost contributors(The Huffington Post) WP:HUFFPOCON 📌 | | 2020 +18[aj] | 2020 | Until 2018, the U.S. edition ofHuffPost published content written by contributors with near-zero editorial oversight. These contributors generally did not have a reputation for fact-checking, and most editors consider them highly variable in quality. Editors show consensus for treatingHuffPost contributor articles asself-published sources, unless the article was written by asubject-matter expert.HuffPost contributor articles should never be used forthird-party claims aboutliving persons. In 2018,HuffPost discontinued its contributor platform, but old contributor articles are still online. Check thebyline to determine whether an article is written by a staff member or a "Contributor" (also referred to as an "Editorial Partner").See also:HuffPost (excluding politics),HuffPost (politics). | 1 2 |
| Human Events | | 123 | 2019 | Editors considerHuman Eventsbiased or opinionated, and its statements should beattributed. In May 2019, a former editor-in-chief ofBreitbart News became the editor-in-chief ofHuman Events; articles published after the leadership change are considered generally unreliable. There is no consensus on the reliability ofHuman Events's older content.See also:The Post Millennial. | 1 |
| Idolator | | 12 | 2014 | There is consensus that Idolator is generally reliable for popular music. Consider whether content from this publication constitutesdue weight before citing it in an article. | 1 |
| IGN(Imagine Games Network) WP:IGN 📌 | | 12[ak] | 2017 | There is consensus thatIGN is generally reliable for entertainment and popular culture, as well as for film and video game reviews given that attribution is provided. Consider whether the information from this source constitutesdue weight before citing it in an article. In addition, articles written by N-Sider are generally unreliable as this particular group of journalists have been found to fabricate articles and pass off speculation as fact. The site's blogs should be handled withWP:RSBLOG.See also:AskMen. | 1 |
| IMDb(Internet Movie Database) WP:IMDB 📌 | | 2019 +33[al] | 2020 | The content on IMDb isuser-generated, and the site is considered unreliable by a majority of editors.WP:Citing IMDb describes two exceptions. Although certain content on the site is reviewed by staff, editors criticize the quality of IMDb's fact-checking. 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 (seeWP:IMDB-EL). | 1 |
| The Independent WP:THEINDEPENDENT 📌 WP:INDYUK 📌 | | 2021 | 2024 | The Independent, a British newspaper, is considered a reliable source for non-specialist information. In March 2016, the publication discontinued its print edition to become anonline newspaper; some editors advise caution for articles published after this date. | 1 |
| Independent Journal Review(IJR) | | 123 | 2018 | There is no consensus on the reliability of theIndependent Journal Review. Posts from "community" members are consideredself-published sources. The site's "news" section consists mostly ofsyndicated stories fromReuters, and citations of these stories should preferably point to Reuters. | 1 |
| Independent Media Center(Indymedia, IMC) WP:IMC 📌 WP:INDYMEDIA 📌 | | 12 | 2020 | TheIndependent Media Center is anopen publishing network. Editors express low confidence in Indymedia's reputation for fact-checking, and consider Indymedia aself-published source. | |
| The Indian Express WP:INDIANEXP 📌 | | 2020 | 2020 | The Indian Express is considered generally reliable under thenews organizations guideline. | 1 |
| Indiegogo | | 2020 | 2020 | Indiegogo is acrowdfunding website specializing in funding for start-up charities or businesses. As a primary source, it should usually be avoided for topics involving crowdfunding campaigns where better sources are available. The 2020 RfC gained a consensus for Indiegogo to be placed on theWikipedia spam blacklist; links must be whitelisted before they can be used. | 1 |
| Infowars(NewsWars,Banned.video,National File) WP:INFOWARS 📌 | | 2018 2018 | 2024 | Due to persistent abuse,Infowars is on both theWikipedia spam blacklist and theWikimedia global spam blacklist, and links must bewhitelisted before they can be used.Infowars was deprecated in the 2018 RfC, which showed unanimous consensus that the site publishesfake news andconspiracy theories. The use ofInfowars as a reference should be generally prohibited, especially when other sources exist that are morereliable.Infowars should not be used for determiningnotability, or used as asecondary source in articles. In November 2024,The Onion (seeRSP entry) attempted to buy the site at its bankruptcy auction,[18] but was subsequently blocked by a judge citing concerns over the auction.[19] | |
| Inquisitr | | 123 | 2021 | Inquisitr is anews aggregator, although it does publish some original reporting. There is consensus that Inquisitr is a generally unreliable source. Editors note that where Inquisitr has aggregated news from other sources, it is better to cite the original sources of information. | 1 |
| Insider (excluding culture)(Business Insider,Markets Insider,Tech Insider) WP:BI 📌 WP:BUSINESSINSIDER 📌 | | 2020 2022 15[am] | 2024 | There is no consensus on the reliability ofInsider. The site'ssyndicated content, which may not be clearly marked, should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher.See also:Insider (culture). | 1 2 3 |
| Insider (culture) | | 2021 2021 | 2021 | There is consensus thatInsider is generally reliable for its coverage in its culture section.See also:Insider (excluding culture). | 1 2 |
| Instagram(IG, Insta, The Gram) WP:RSPIG 📌 WP:RSPINSTAGRAM 📌 | | 2023 | 2023 | As asocial networking service, Instagram is covered by the following policies and guidelines:WP:SOCIALMEDIA,WP:RSSELF,WP:SPS andWP:UGC. | 1 |
| Inter Press Service(IPS) | | 12 | 2011 | The Inter Press Service is anews agency. There is consensus that the Inter Press Service is generally reliable for news. | 1 2 3 |
| The Intercept | | 1234 | 2020 | There is consensus thatThe Intercept is generally reliable for news. Almost all editors considerThe Intercept abiased source, so uses may need to beattributed. For science, editors preferpeer-reviewed journals over news sources likeThe Intercept. | 1 |
| International Business Times(IBT,IBTimes) WP:IBTIMES 📌 | | 1234567 | 2019 | There is consensus that theInternational 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'ssyndicated content, which may not be clearly marked, should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher. | |
| International Fact-Checking Network(IFCN) WP:IFCN 📌 | | 2020 | 2020 | ThePoynter Institute's International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) reviewsfact-checking organizations according to a code of principles. There is consensus that it is generally reliable for determining thereliability of fact-checking organizations. | 1 |
| Investopedia WP:INVESTOPEDIA 📌 | | 12345 | 2023 | Investopedia is atertiary source on finances, owned byDotdash. A number of users have reported inaccurate and low-quality content on this website. It is advised not to use Investopedia, and to cite other, higher quality sources instead. | 1 |
| IslamQA.info | | 12 | 2022 | IslamQA.info is a Q&A site on Salafism founded and supervised byMuhammad Saalih al-Munajjid. There is no consensus on whether it could be used for the Salaf Movement, with more reliable secondary sources recommended and in-text attribution if utilised. It is considered generally unreliable for broader Islam-related topics due to it representing a minor viewpoint. Some editors also consider the website a self-published source due to the lack of editorial control. | 1 |
| Jacobin WP:JACOBIN 📌 | | 2021 2025 | 2025 | Jacobin is a U.S.-based magazine that describes itself as aleading voice of the American left, offering socialist perspectives on politics, economics, and cultureand predominantly publishes analysis and opinion pieces. PerWP:RSEDITORIAL, editors should prefer citing straight news over citing such pieces whenever possible and take care to adhere to theneutral point of view policy, for example byquoting andattributing statements that present its authors' opinions and by ensuring thatdue weight is given toJacobin's perspective amongst others'. Information fromJacobin not covered under RSEDITORIAL is considered generally reliable albeitWP:BIASED, while the reliability of articles authored by Branko Marcetic has been considered questionable. | 1 2 |
| JAMA(Journal of theAmerican Medical Association) | | 12 | 2018 | JAMA is apeer-reviewedmedical journal published by theAmerican Medical Association. It is considered generally reliable. Opinion pieces fromJAMA, including articles from The Jama Forum, are subject toWP:RSOPINION and might not qualify underWP:MEDRS. | 1 |
| Jerusalem Post | | 2024 | 2024 | The Jerusalem Post is generally reliable but should be treated with caution when making extraordinary claims regarding the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. It should be used as a source for the Israeli–Palestinian conflict only to cite basic facts or if its reporting is validated by additional reporting from another source not similarly limited. | 1 |
| The Jewish Chronicle(The JC) WP:THEJC 📌 WP:RSPJC 📌 | | 2021 | 2024 | In the 2024 RfC, there was consensus thatThe Jewish Chronicle is generally reliable for news until 2015. Additional considerations apply for Palestine/Israel topics between 2015 and 2020, with some concern that related topics may also require further considerations. Post-2020,The Jewish Chronicle is considered generally unreliable regarding Palestine/Israel topics, and requires caution regarding related topics. In the 2021 RfC, there was no consensus on whetherThe Jewish Chronicle is reliable for topics related to theBritish Left,Muslims, andIslam; there is otherwise a rough consensus it isbiased in these topics. Where used,in-text attribution is recommended for its coverage of these topics. | 1 |
| Jewish Virtual Library(JVL) | | 2020 | 2021 | The Jewish Virtual Library is apartisan source which sometimescites Wikipedia and it is mostly unreliable, especially in its "Myths & Facts" section. When it cites sources, those should preferably be read and then cited directly instead. Some exceptions on a case-by-case basis are possible. | 1 |
| Jezebel WP:JEZEBEL 📌 | | 1234 | 2023 | There is no consensus on the reliability ofJezebel. Most editors believe thatJezebel isbiased or opinionated, and that its claims should beattributed.Jezebel should generally not be used for contentious claims, especially ones aboutliving persons. The website shut down in November 2023 but was relaunched in December 2023. | 1 |
| Jihad Watch | | 2021 | 2021 | Jihad Watch was deprecated in the 2021 RfC; of the editors who commented on the substance of the proposal, they were unanimous that the source is unreliable. It is a blog generally regarded as propagatinganti-Muslimconspiracy theories. | 1 |
| Joshua Project (Believers in Christ from a Muslim Background: A Global Census,WEC International) WP:JOSHUAPROJECT 📌 | | 2021 +12[an] | 2022 | The Joshua Project is an ethnological database created to support Christian missions. It is considered to be generally unreliable due to the lack of any academic recognition or an adequate editorial process. The Joshua Project provides a list of sources from which they gather their data, many of which are related evangelical groups and they too should not be used for ethnological data as they arequestionable sources. | 1 2 |
| Kickstarter | | 2020 | 2020 | Kickstarter is acrowdfunding website specializing in funding for new works of fiction. As a primary source, it should usually be avoided for topics involving crowdfunding campaigns where better sources are available. The 2020 RfC gained a consensus for Kickstarter to be placed on theWikipedia spam blacklist; links must be whitelisted before they can be used. | 1 |
| Kirkus Reviews WP:KIRKUS 📌 | | 12345 | 2023 | Most content by Kirkus Reviews is considered to be generally reliable. Kirkus Indie is a pay-for-review program for independent authors: its content is considered to be questionable and to not count towards notability, in part because the author can choose whether or not the review is published. Whether or not a review is a "Kirkus Indie" can be determined by the presence of a "Review Program: KIRKUS INDIE" tag at the end of the article. | 1 |
| Know Your Meme(KYM) WP:KNOWYOURMEME 📌 WP:KYM 📌 | | 123456 | 2022 | Know Your Meme entries, including "confirmed" entries, areuser-generated and generally unreliable. There is no consensus on the reliability of their video series. | 1 |
| Kommersant | | 2021 | 2021 | Kommersant is a liberal businessbroadsheetnewspaper with nationwide distribution in theRussian Federation. Editors generally believed thatKommersant is one of the better publications in Russia and believe its reporting is generally reliable on most matters. However, editors have expressed concerns regarding how limitedmedia freedom in Russia may affect the source's reporting, and as such caution should be applied when the source is used in relation to events in which the Russian government has a close interest. In such contexts, use of the source should generally be accompanied withintext attribution. | 1 2 3 |
| Kotaku (pre-2023) WP:KOTAKU 📌 | | 123 | 2022 | There is no clear consensus on the reliability ofKotaku prior to 2023 with regards to topics on video games. Editors seem to agree that the site's editorial standards strengthened slightly in 2010, but then deteriorated in the years leading up to 2023. The site's blog posts should be handled withWP:RSOPINION.See also:Kotaku (2023–present). | 1 2 3 |
| Kotaku (2023–present) | | AB | 2023 | Kotaku articles written from 2023 onwards are generally unreliable as the site has usedcontent farms andAI-generated content in a non-transparent manner.See also:Kotaku (pre-2023). | 1 2 3 |
| Land Transport Guru | | 123 | 2024 | Due to it being a self-published source, Land Transport Guru is considered generally unreliable. | 1 |
| Last.fm WP:LASTFM 📌 | | 2019 | 2019 | Last.fm was deprecated in the 2019 RfC. The content on Last.fm isuser-generated, and is considered generally unreliable. | 1 |
| Lenta.ru (March 2014–present) | | 20192020 | 2020 | Due to persistent abuse,Lenta.ru is on theWikipedia spam blacklist, and links to articles published on or after 12 March 2014 must bewhitelisted before they can be used.Lenta.ru was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the site frequently publishesconspiracy theories andRussian propaganda, owing to a mass dismissal of staff on 12 March 2014. The use ofLenta.ru articles published since 12 March 2014 as references should be generally prohibited, especially when other sources exist that are morereliable.Lenta.ru should not be used for determiningnotability, or used as asecondary source in articles.Lenta.ru's reliability pre-March 2014 was not discussed in the RfC. | 1 |
| LifeSiteNews(Campaign Life Coalition) WP:LIFESITENEWS 📌 | | 2019 | 2019 | LifeSiteNews was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the site publishes false or fabricated information. | 1 2 |
| LinkedIn(LinkedIn Pulse) WP:RSPLINKEDIN 📌 | | 10[ao] | 2023 | LinkedIn is a social network. As aself-published source, it is considered generally unreliable and should be avoided unless the post is used for anuncontroversial self-description. Articles onLinkedIn Pulse written by LinkedIn users are also self-published. LinkedIn accounts should only be cited if they areverified accounts or if the user's identity is confirmed in some way. Posts that are not covered by reliable sources are likely to constituteundue weight. LinkedIn should never be used forthird-party claims related toliving persons. | 1 |
| LionhearTV WP:LIONHEARTV 📌 | | 2025 | 2025 | LionhearTV is ablog owned by eMVP Digital. The 2025 RfC deemed it generally unreliable as aself-published source. However, there was no consensus to deprecate the source at the time. | 1 |
| LiveJournal | | 1234 | 2020 | LiveJournal is ablog hosting service. As aself-published source, it is considered generally unreliable. LiveJournal can be used foruncontroversial self-descriptions and content fromsubject-matter experts, but not as asecondary source forliving persons. | 1 |
| LiveLeak | | 2019 | 2019 | Due to persistent abuse, LiveLeak is on theWikipedia spam blacklist, and links must bewhitelisted before they can be used. LiveLeak was anonline video platform that hosteduser-generated content. Many of the videos on LiveLeak arecopyright violations, and should not be linked to perWP:COPYLINK. The use of LiveLeak as aprimary source is questionable in most cases, as the provenance of most of the videos is unclear. LiveLeak shut down in May 2021; website content is no longer accessible unless archived.[20] | 1 |
| Los Angeles Times(L.A. Times) WP:LATIMES 📌 | | 2023 | Most editors consider theLos Angeles Times generally reliable. Refer toWP:NEWSBLOG for the newspaper's blog. | 1 | |
| Lulu.com(Lulu Press) WP:LULU 📌 | | 2008 | 2019 | Due to persistent abuse, Lulu.com is on theWikipedia spam blacklist, and links must bewhitelisted before they can be used. Lulu.com is aprint-on-demand publisher, which is a type ofself-published source. Books published through Lulu.com can be used if they are written by asubject-matter expert. Occasionally, a reputable publisher uses Lulu.com as aprinter; in this case, cite the original publisher instead of Lulu.com. | 1 |
| Mail & Guardian | | 2021 | 2021 | TheMail & Guardian is a South African newspaper. There is consensus that it is generally reliable. | 1 |
| The Mail on Sunday WP:MAILONSUNDAY 📌 | | 2020 | 2020 | There is clear and substantial consensus that theMail on Sunday is generally unreliable, and a slightly narrower consensus that the source should be deprecated. Those supporting deprecation point to factual errors, asserted fabrications, and biased reporting identified on the part of the source, with reference to specific instances, and to common ownership of the source witha previously deprecated source. | |
| Marquis Who's Who(Who's Who in America) | | 1234567 | 2022 | Marquis Who's Who, including its publicationWho's Who in America, is considered generally unreliable. As most of its content is provided by the person concerned, editors generally considerMarquis Who's Who comparable to aself-published source. There is a broad consensus thatMarquis Who's Who should not be used to establishnotability for article topics.See also:Who's Who (UK). | 1 2 |
| Mashable (non-sponsored content) WP:MASHABLE 📌 | | 2021 | 2021 | In a 2021 RfC, editors achieved a consensus that while non-sponsored content from Mashable is generally fine, Mashable tends towards less formal writing and is geared at a particular niche (tech news and pop culture). As such, non-sponsored content should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, especially if the subject matter is outside of Mashable's usual focus. Extra attention needs to be paid when it comes tosponsored content, especially ensuring that the content was written by Mashable staff and not the sponsor themselves. | 1 |
| Mashable (sponsored content) | | 2021 | 2021 | In a 2021 RfC, editors achieved a consensus that while non-sponsored content from Mashable is generally fine, Mashable tends towards less formal writing and is geared at a particular niche (tech news and pop culture). As such, non-sponsored content should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, especially if the subject matter is outside of Mashable's usual focus. Extra attention needs to be paid when it comes tosponsored content, especially ensuring that the content was written by Mashable staff and not the sponsor themselves. | 1 |
| The Mary Sue | | 123 | 2022 | There is consensus thatThe Mary Sue is generally reliable. Most editors considerThe Mary Suebiased or opinionated. Opinions should be attributed. | 1 |
| MDPI(Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute) WP:MDPI 📌 | | 1234567 | 2021 | Publications in MDPI journals are considered questionable. Editors have raised concerns about the robustness of MDPI's peer review process and their lack of selectivity in what they publish. Originally placed onBeall's List of predatory open journals in 2014, MDPI was removed from the list in 2015, while applying pressure on Beall's employer. As of early 2024, about 5% of MDPI journals had been rejected by theNorwegian Scientific Index, and another 5% are under review.[21] | 1 |
| MEAWW(Media Entertainment Arts WorldWide) | | 123 | 2021 | MEAWW is a tabloid site covering pop culture and the internet. The site often employs clickbait and is considered generally unreliable. | 1 |
| Media Bias/Fact Check(MBFC) WP:MBFC 📌 WP:MB/FC 📌 | | 1234 | 2021 | There is consensus thatMedia Bias/Fact Check is generally unreliable, as it isself-published. Editors have questioned the methodology of the site's ratings. | 1 |
| Media Matters for America(MMfA) WP:MEDIAMATTERS 📌 | | 2010 2019 +11[ap] | 2023 | There is consensus that Media Matters ismarginally reliable and that its articles should be evaluated for reliability on a case-by-case basis. As apartisan advocacy group, their statements should beattributed. | 1 |
| Media Research Center(MRC,CNSNews.com, Cybercast News Service,MRCTV, NewsBusters) | | 2010 2019 2020 | 2020 | There is consensus that the Media Research Center and its subdivisions (e.g. CNSNews.com, MRCTV, and NewsBusters) are generally unreliable for factual reporting. Some editors believe these sources publish false or fabricated information. Asbiased or opinionated sources, their statements should beattributed. | |
| Mediaite | | 1234 | 2023 | 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, anddue weight should be considered if no other reliable sources support a given statement. | 1 |
| Medium WP:MEDIUM 📌 | | 2022 | 2022 | Medium is ablog hosting service. As aself-published source, it is considered generally unreliable and should be avoided unless the author is asubject-matter expert or the blog is used foruncontroversial self-descriptions. Medium should never be used forthird-party claims aboutliving persons. A 2022 RfC also found thatCuepoint, Medium's music publication, is marginally reliable, with editors stating that its reliability depends on the qualification of the author. | 1 |
| Metacritic(GameRankings) | | 10[aq] | 2017 | Metacritic is considered generally reliable for its review aggregation and its news articles on film, TV, and video games. There is no consensus on whether its blog articles and critic opinion pages are generally reliable for facts. There is consensus that user reviews on Metacritic are generally unreliable, as they areself-published sources. Reviewers tracked by Metacritic are not automatically reliable for their reviews. In December 2019, video game aggregate siteGameRankings shut down and merged with Metacritic; GameRankings's content is no longer accessible unless archived.[22][23][24] | 1 2 |
| Metal-experience.com WP:METALEXPERIENCE 📌 | | 2021 | 2021 | Metal-experience.com was determined to be generally unreliable for factual reporting. | 1 |
| MetalSucks | | 12 | 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 |
| Metro (UK) WP:METRO 📌 | | 10[ar] | 2022 | The reliability ofMetro has been compared to that of theDaily Mail and other British tabloids. Articles published in the print newspaper are considered more reliable than articles published only on the metro.co.uk website. The newspaper articles were previously segregated online via the metro.news domain and are presently tagged under "metro newspaper" at the metro.co.uk domain. | 1 2 |
| Middle East Media Research Institute(MEMRI) WP:MEMRI 📌 | | 2020 | 2023 | The reliability of MEMRI is considered to lie between no consensus and generally unreliable. Many editors argue that MEMRI has a history of providing misleading coverage and that the source should be used with caution if at all. | 1 2 |
| Middle East Monitor(MEMO) WP:MEMO 📌 | | 1234567 | 2024 | There is no consensus over the reliability of Middle East Monitor (MEMO). Previously consensus was established that it is a partisan think tank, with opinions ranging from "sometimes usable with attribution" to "unreliable". | 1 |
| MintPress News WP:MINTPRESS 📌 | | 2019 | 2025 | MintPress News was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the site publishes false or fabricated information. | |
| Le Monde diplomatique | | 1234 | 2018 | There is consensus thatLe Monde diplomatique is generally reliable. Some editors considerLe Monde diplomatique to be a biased and opinionated source. | 1 2 |
| Mondoweiss WP:MONDOWEISS 📌 | | 2024 | 2024 | 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 ofMondoweiss. Editors consider the sitebiased or opinionated, and its statements should beattributed. | 1 |
| Morning Star (UK) | | 1234 | 2024 | TheMorning Star is a British tabloid with a low circulation and readership that theNew Statesman has described as "Britain's lastcommunist newspaper".[25] There is no consensus on whether theMorning Star engages in factual reporting, and broad consensus that it is abiased and partisan source. All uses of theMorning Star should beattributed. Take care to ensure that content from theMorning Star constitutesdue weight in the article and conforms to thebiographies of living persons policy. | 1 |
| Mother Jones(MoJo) WP:MOTHERJONES 📌 | | 12345 | 2019 | There is consensus thatMother Jones is generally reliable. Almost all editors considerMother Jones abiased source, so its statements (particularly on political topics) may need to beattributed. Consider whether content from this publication constitutesdue weight before citing it in an article. | 1 |
| MSNBC | | 2020 | 2022 | There is consensus that MSNBC is generally reliable. Talk show content should be treated asopinion pieces.See also:NBC News | 1 |
| MyLife(Reunion.com) | | 2019 2019 | 2019 | Due to persistent abuse, MyLife is on theWikipedia spam blacklist, and links must bewhitelisted before they can be used. MyLife (formerly known as Reunion.com) is aninformation broker that publishesuser-generated content, and is considered generally unreliable. | 1 2 |
| The Nation | | 123456789 | 2022 | There is consensus thatThe Nation is generally reliable. In the "About" section of their website, they identify as progressive. Most editors considerThe Nation apartisan source whose statements should beattributed. The publication'sopinion pieces should be handled with the appropriate guideline. Take care to ensure that content fromThe Nation constitutesdue weight in the article and conforms to thebiographies of living persons policy. | 1 |
| National Enquirer | | 2019 | 2019 | TheNational Enquirer is asupermarket tabloid that is considered generally unreliable. In the 2019 RfC, there was weak consensus todeprecate theNational Enquirer as a source, but no consensus to create anedit filter to warn editors against using the publication. | 1 |
| National Geographic(Nat Geo) WP:NATGEO 📌 | | 1234 | 2023 | There is consensus thatNational Geographic is generally reliable. For coverage byNational Geographic offringe topics and ideas,due weight andparity of sources should be considered. | 1 |
| National Post(Postmedia Network) WP:NATIONALPOST 📌 | | 2024 | 2024 | National Post is considered to be a generally reliablenewspaper. | 1 |
| National Review(NR) WP:NATIONALREVIEW 📌 | | 123456 | 2018 | There is no consensus on the reliability ofNational Review. Most editors considerNational Review apartisan source whose statements should beattributed. The publication'sopinion pieces should be handled with the appropriate guideline. Take care to ensure that content from theNational Review constitutesdue weight in the article and conforms to thebiographies of living persons policy. | 1 |
| Natural News(NewsTarget) WP:NATURALNEWS 📌 | | 2019 | 2019 | Due to persistent abuse, Natural News is on theWikipedia spam blacklist, and links must bewhitelisted before they can be used. There is a near-unanimous consensus that the site repeatedly publishes false or fabricated information, including an exceptionally large number ofconspiracy theories. | 1 2 |
| NBC News | | 1234 | 2024 | There is consensus that NBC News is generally reliable for news.See also:MSNBC | 1 |
| The Needle Drop WP:THENEEDLEDROP 📌 WP:FANTANO 📌 | | 2021 | 2021 | There is consensus that additional considerations apply when considering whether the use ofThe Needle Drop as a source is appropriate. There is currently strong consensus thatAnthony Fantano's reviews that are published viaThe Needle Drop areself-published sources. There is currently rough consensus that Fantano is considered to be an established subject-matter expert as it pertains to music reviews and that these reviews may be used in an article asattributed opinion. However, per Wikipedia policy regarding self-published sources, these reviews should never be used asthird-party claims about living people. There is also currently a rough consensus that Fantano's reviews do not always constitutedue weight and that discretion should be applied on a case-by-case basis when determining if a review fromThe Needle Drop is appropriate to include in a given article. Articles on the theneedledrop.com website are unreliable due to a lack of an editorial policy. | 1 |
| The New American | | 123456 | 2016 | There is consensus thatThe New American is generally unreliable for factual reporting. Some editors consider it usable for attributed opinions regarding theJohn Birch Society. | 1 |
| New Eastern Outlook | | 2022
| 2022 | In the 2022 RfC, there is consensus to deprecateNew Eastern Outlook. Editors note that it is considered a Russian propaganda outlet by multiple reliable sources, and numerous examples of publishing false content. | 1 |
| The New Republic | | 2020 | 2024 | There is consensus thatThe New Republic is generally reliable. Most editors considerThe New Republicbiased or opinionated. Opinions in the magazine should beattributed. | 1 |
| New York(Vulture,The Cut,Grub Street,Daily Intelligencer) | | 12345 | 2021 | There is consensus thatNew York magazine, including its subsidiary websiteVulture, is generally reliable. There is no consensus on whether it is generally reliable for contentious statements.See also:Polygon,The Verge,Vox | |
| New YorkDaily News(Illustrated Daily News) | | 123 | 2020 | Most editors consider the content of New YorkDaily News articles to be generally reliable, but question the accuracy of itstabloid-style headlines. | 1 |
| New York Post(NY Post,New York Evening Post,Page Six) (excluding entertainment) WP:NYPOST 📌 WP:PAGESIX 📌 | | 2020 +14[as] | 2024 | There is consensus theNew York Post is generally unreliable for factual reporting, especially with regard to politics, particularlyNew York City politics. Atabloid newspaper, editors criticise its lack of concern for fact-checking or corrections, including examples of outright fabrication. Editors consider theNew York Post more reliable before it changed ownership in 1976, and particularly unreliable for coverage involving theNew York City Police Department. A 2024 RfC concluded that theNew York Post is marginally reliable for entertainment coverage; see below. This consensus does not apply to the broadsheet publication of the same name, that existed from 1801–1942. | 1 2 |
| New York Post(NY Post,New York Evening Post,Page Six,Decider) (entertainment) WP:DECIDER 📌 | | 2024 | 2024 | There is consensus that theNew York Post (nypost.com ) and its sub-publicationsDecider (decider.com ) andPage Six are considered to be marginally reliable sources for entertainment coverage, including reviews, but should not be used for controversial statements related toliving persons. | 1 2 3 |
| The New York Times(NYT) WP:NYT 📌 WP:NYTIMES 📌 | | 2018 +46[at] | 2024 | There is consensus thatThe New York Times is generally reliable.WP:RSOPINION should be used to evaluate opinion columns, whileWP:NEWSBLOG should be used for the blogs onThe New York Times's website. The 2018 RfC citesWP:MEDPOP to establish that popular press sources such asThe New York Times should generally not be used to supportmedical claims. | 1 |
| The New Yorker | | 12 | 2011 | There is consensus thatThe New Yorker is generally reliable. Editors note the publication's robust fact-checking process. | 1 |
| The New Zealand Herald(NZ Herald) | | 2021 | 2023 | There is consensus thatThe New Zealand Herald is generally reliable. | 1 |
| News of the World WP:NEWSOFTHEWORLD 📌 | | 2019 | 2021 | News of the World was deprecated in the 2019 RfC. There is consensus thatNews of the World is generally unreliable. As is the case withThe Sun,News of the World should not be used as a reference in most cases aside fromabout-self usage, and should not be used to determinenotability. Some editors considerNews of the World usable for uncontroversial film reviews if attribution is provided.News of the World shut down in 2011; website content is no longer accessible unless archived. | 1 2 |
| NewsBlaze | | 2021 | 2021 | NewsBlaze was unanimously deprecated bysnowball clause consensus in the 2021 RfC. Editors cite NewsBlaze's publication of false and/or fabricated information, conspiracy theories, the site's sourcing practices, and copyright concerns. | 1 2 |
| NewsBreak(News Break) | | 2020
| 2020 | NewsBreak is anews aggregator that publishes snippets of articles from other sources. In the 2020 RfC, there was consensus to deprecate NewsBreak in favor of the original sources. | 1 |
| NewsFront | | 2019 | 2019 | Due to persistent abuse,NewsFront is on theWikipedia spam blacklist, and links must bewhitelisted before they can be used.NewsFront was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed unanimous consensus that the site publishesfake news and Russian propaganda. The use ofNewsFront as a reference should be generally prohibited, especially when other sources exist that are morereliable.NewsFront should not be used for determiningnotability, or used as asecondary source in articles. | 1 |
| Newslaundry | | 2020 | 2020 | There is consensus that Newslaundry is generally reliable. Some editors have expressed concerns regarding possible bias in its political narratives and reporting on rival publications; in cases where this could reasonably apply, attribution is recommended, and sufficient. | 1 |
| Newsmax WP:NEWSMAX 📌 | | 2020 | 2022 | Newsmax was deprecated bysnowball clause consensus in the November 2020 RfC. Concerns of editors included that Newsmax lacks adherence to journalistic standards, launders propaganda, promulgates misinformation, promotes conspiracy theories and false information for political purposes, and promotes medical misinformation such asCOVID-19-related falsehoods, climate change denialism, conspiracy theories, and anti-vaccination propaganda. | 1 2 |
| NewsNation (general topics) | | 2025 | 2025 | There is a consensus that NewsNation is generally reliable for matters not related to UFOs or UAPs.See also:NewsNation (UFOs, UAPs). | 1 |
| NewsNation (UFOs, UAPs) WP:UFONATION 📌 | | 2025 | 2025 | There is a consensus that NewsNation is generally unreliable for the topic of UFOs or UAPs. Editors pointed to NewsNation's lead reporter on UFOs,Ross Coulthart, having a well-documented history of promoting conspiracy theories in that topic area.See also:NewsNation (general topics). | 1 |
| Newsweek (pre-2013) | | 2019 +11[au] | 2019 | There is consensus that articles fromNewsweek pre-2013 are generally reliable for news covered during that time. In 2011,Newsweek was a reputable magazine with only some minor problems while it was owned byThe Newsweek Daily Beast Company (which also ownedThe Daily Beast). Blogs underNewsweek, including The Gaggle, should be handled with theWP:NEWSBLOG policy.See also:Newsweek (2013–present). | 1 |
| Newsweek (2013–present) WP:NEWSWEEK 📌 | | 2019 +11[au] | 2024 | Unlike articles before 2013,Newsweek articles since 2013 are not generally reliable. From 2013 to 2018,Newsweek was owned and operated byIBT Media, the parent company ofInternational Business Times. IBT Media introduced a number of bad practices to the once reputable magazine and mainly focused onclickbait headlines over quality journalism. Its current relationship with IBT Media is unclear, andNewsweek's quality has not returned to its status prior to the 2013 purchase. Many editors have noted that there are several exceptions to this standard, so consensus is to evaluateNewsweek content on a case-by-case basis. In addition, as of April 2024,Newsweek has disclosed that they make use of AI assistance to write articles.See also:Newsweek (pre-2013). | 1 |
| The Next Web(TNW) | | 1234 | 2019 | There is no consensus on the reliability of The Next Web. Articles written bycontributors may be subject to reduced or no editorial oversight. Avoid using The Next Web'ssponsored content. | 1 |
| NGO Monitor(Non-governmental Organization Monitor) | | 2024 | 2024 | There is a consensus that NGO Monitor is not reliable for facts. Editors agree that, despite attempts to portray itself otherwise, it is an advocacy organization whose primary goal is to attack organizations that disagree with it or with the Israeli government regarding theIsraeli–Palestinian conflict. Some editors also express concern about past attempts by NGO Monitor staff to manipulate coverage of itself on Wikipedia. | 1 |
| NME(New Musical Express) WP:RSPNME 📌 | | 12 | 2020 | There is consensus that British publicationNME is generally reliable for content related to its areas of expertise, which include music. | 1 |
| NNDB(Notable Names Database) WP:NNDB 📌 | | 2019 | 2019 | NNDB is a biographical database operated by Soylent Communications, the parent company ofshock siteRotten.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 pagescircular sourcing. | 1 |
| NPR(National Public Radio) WP:RSPNPR 📌 | | 12345 | 2024 | There is consensus that NPR is generally reliable for news and statements of fact. NPR'sopinion pieces should only be used withattribution. | 1 |
| Occupy Democrats(Washington Press) | | 2018
| 2018 | In the 2018 RfC, there was clear consensus to deprecate Occupy Democrats as a source à la theDaily Mail. 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 aprimary source for attributing opinions, viewpoints, and the like. | 1 2 |
| Office of Cuba Broadcasting(Radio y Television Martí, martinoticias.com) WP:OCB 📌 WP:RYTM 📌 WP:MARTI 📌 | | 2024 2024 | 2024 | Any platforms operated by the Office of Cuba Broadcasting of theU.S. Agency for Global Media, including but not limited toRadio y Television Martí (RyTM) and its website, martinoticias.com, are deprecated. There is consensus that RyTM has poor editorial controls that fall below professional standards of journalism, presents opinion as fact, reports on unsubstantiated information, and promotes propaganda, including anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. | 1 |
| OKO.press WP:OKO 📌 | | 2021 2024 | 2024 | OKO.press is a Polish investigative journalism and fact-checking website. There is consensus that it is generally reliable in its reporting, though some editors consider it abiased source. | 1 |
| One America News Network(OANN) WP:OANN 📌 | | 2019 | 2019 | In the 2019 RfC, there was clear consensus to deprecate One America News Network as a source à la theDaily Mail. Editors noted that One America News Network published a number of falsehoods, conspiracy theories, and intentionally misleading stories. One America News Network should not be used, ever, as a reference for facts, due to its unreliability. It can still be used as aprimary source when attributing opinions, viewpoints, and commentary, meaning that it should not be used as a source outside of its own article. | 1 |
| The Onion | | 123 | 2024 | The Onion is asatirical news website, and should not be used as a source for facts. | 1 |
| OpIndia WP:OPINDIA 📌 | | 12 | 2020 | Due to persistent abuse, OpIndia is on theWikipedia spam blacklist, and links must bewhitelisted before they can be used. OpIndia is considered generally unreliable due to its poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. OpIndia was rejected by theInternational Fact-Checking Network when it applied for accreditation in 2019. In the2020 discussion, most editors expressed support fordeprecating OpIndia. Editors consider the sitebiased or opinionated. OpIndia has directly attacked anddoxed Wikipedia editors who edit India-related articles. Posting or linking to another editor's personal information is prohibited under theouting policy, unless the editor is voluntarily disclosing the information on Wikipedia. Editors who are subject to legal risks due to their activity on Wikipedia mayrequest assistance from the Wikimedia Foundation, although support is not guaranteed.See also:Swarajya. | 1 2 |
| Our Campaigns | | 2021 | 2021 | Our Campaigns is considered generally unreliable due to its publishing ofuser-generated content. | 1 |
| PanAm Post | | 2020 2023 | 2023 | There is consensus that thePanAm Post is generally unreliable for factual reporting. Most editors consider the publicationbiased or opinionated. Some editors note that thePanAm Post isused by other sources that are reliable and only believe that its opinion section should be avoided. | 1 |
| Patheos WP:PATHEOS 📌 | | 2022 | 2022 | Patheos is a website that hosts a collection of blogs. These blogs receive little editorial oversight and should be treated asself-published sources. | 1 |
| La Patilla | | 2023 | 2023 | La Patilla is considered marginally reliable as a news source covering Venezuela, with several additional considerations. Aggregated content should not be used at all. Avoid referencing articles onLa Patilla that themselves reference unreliable sources, as editors have concerns about editorial oversight in such cases. Editors note a clearpolitical bias, be extremely cautious in referencing coverage of politics. Some editors note that the bias may also affect choice of topics. Avoid use incontentious topics, e.g. COVID-19. Avoid for controversialWP:BLP claims. | 1 |
| PBS(The Public Broadcasting Service) | | 123456 | 2021 | PBS is considered generally reliable by editors. | 1 |
| Peerage websites (self-published) | | 2020 2020
| 2020 | Two RfCs found consensus that certainself-published peerage websites are not reliable for genealogical information and should be deprecated. See§ Self-published peerage websites for the full list. | List |
| People | | 2013 | 2022 | There is consensus thatPeople magazine can be a reliable source inbiographies of living persons, but the magazine should not be used for contentious claims unless supplemented with a stronger source. | 1 |
| People Make Games | | 2023 | 2023 | There is consensus that People Make Games is generally reliable for the topic of video games, although care should be taken if using the source forWP:BLP-related information due to concerns that they have no clear editorial policy, and they are aWP:EXPERTSPS. | — |
| Pew Research Center | | 12 | 2012 | There is consensus that thePew Research Center is generally reliable. | |
| An Phoblacht | | 2020 | 2020 | There is consensus thatAn Phoblacht is generally unreliable for news reporting, as it is a publication ofSinn Féin. Under the conditions ofWP:ABOUTSELF,An Phoblacht is usable forattributed statements from Sinn Féin and some editors believe that the publication may also be used for attributed statements from theProvisional Irish Republican Army (IRA). | 1 |
| PinkNews WP:PINKNEWS 📌 | | 2020 +10[aw] | 2024 | There is rough consensus thatPinkNews isgenerally reliable for factual reporting, but additional considerations may apply and caution should be used. Most of those who commented onPinkNews' reliability for statements about a person's sexuality said that such claims had to be based on direct quotes from the subject. | 1 |
| Planespotters.net WP:PLANESPOTTERS 📌 | | 12 | 2023 | Although Planespotters.net has been widely used for aviation articles, there is consensus that it is generally unreliable. The website's content is mostly self-published or user-generated, unverified, with many instances of inaccurate reporting. | 1 |
| Playboy | | 12345678 | 2015 | There is consensus thatPlayboy is generally reliable. Editors note the publication's reputation for high-quality interviews and fact-checking. | 1 |
| The Points Guy (news and reviews)(TPG) | | 2018 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 theWikipedia spam blacklist, and links must bewhitelisted before they can be used.See also:The Points Guy (sponsored content). | 1 2 |
| The Points Guy (sponsored content)(TPG) | | 2018 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 theWikipedia spam blacklist, and links must bewhitelisted before they can be used.See also:The Points Guy (news and reviews). | 1 |
| Politico | | 2021 | 2024 | Politico is considered generally reliable for American politics. A small number of editors say thatPolitico is abiased source. | 1 |
| PolitiFact(PunditFact) | | 2016 2019 | 2019 | PolitiFact is a reliable source for reporting the veracity of statements made by political candidates as well as the percentage of false statements made by a political candidate (of the statements checked by PolitiFact), provided thatattribution is given. | 1 |
| Polygon WP:POLYGON 📌 | | 12 | 2020 | Polygon is considered generally reliable for video games and pop culture related topics.See also:The Verge,Vox,New York | 1 |
| The Post Millennial WP:POSTMIL 📌 | | 2020 | 2020 | There is consensus thatThe Post Millennial is generally unreliable. Editors have noted multiple instances of inaccurate reporting, and consider the publication to be strongly biased.See also:Human Events. | 1 |
| PR Newswire WP:PRNEWSWIRE 📌 | | 12345 | 2019 | There is consensus that PR Newswire is generally unreliable, as press releases published on the site are not subject to editorial oversight. Some articles may be used for uncontroversial claimsabout the article's author. | 1 2 |
| Preprints | | 2022 +11[ax] | 2015 | Preprint repositories, likearXiv,bioRxiv,medRxiv,PeerJ Preprints,Preprints.org, andSSRN contain papers that have undergone moderation, but not necessarilypeer review. There is consensus that preprints areself-published sources, and are generally unreliable with the exception of papers authored by establishedsubject-matter experts. Verify whether a preprint paper has been published in a peer-reviewedacademic journal; in these cases, cite the more reliable journal and provide anopen access link to the paper (which may be hosted on the preprint repository). | 1 2 3 |
| Press TV WP:PRESSTV 📌 | | 2020 2021 | 2021 | In the 2020 RfC, editors found a clear consensus to deprecate Press TV, owing to its status as an Iranian government propaganda outlet that publishes disinformation, conspiracy theories, antisemitic content includingHolocaust denial,[26] and a host of other problematic content. | |
| Pride.com | | 2020 | 2020 | There is consensus that Pride.com is marginally reliable and that its articles should be evaluated for reliability on a case-by-case basis. Editors consider Pride.com comparable toBuzzFeed in its presentation. | 1 |
| Project Veritas(James O'Keefe, O'Keefe Media Group) WP:VERITAS 📌 | | 2023 | 2023 | Due to persistent abuse, Project Veritas is on theWikipedia spam blacklist, and links must bewhitelisted before they can be used. In the 2023 RfC, there was overwhelming consensus to deprecate James O'Keefe personally, the O'Keefe Media Group, Project Veritas and future O'Keefe outlets as sources, due to O'Keefe's documented history of deliberate fabrication. There were also strong minorities for adding O'Keefe's works to the spam blacklist and barring evenabout-self claims. Citations to O'Keefe's work in any medium and claims based on any such citations should be removed. | 1 2 |
| ProPublica | | 2019 | 2019 | There is a strong consensus that ProPublica is generally reliable for all purposes because it has an excellent reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, is widely cited by reliable sources, and has received multiplePulitzer Prizes. | 1 |
| Quackwatch | | 2019 +14[ay] | 2020 | Articles written byStephen Barrett on Quackwatch are considered generally reliable (as Barrett is asubject-matter expert) andself-published (as there is disagreement on the comprehensiveness of Quackwatch's editorial process); Barrett's articles should not be used as a source of information onother living persons. Articles written by other authors on Quackwatch are not considered self-published. Many editors believe uses of Quackwatch should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and some editors say its statements should beattributed. It may be preferable to use the sources cited by Quackwatch instead of Quackwatch itself. Since it often coversfringe material,parity of sources should be considered. | 1 |
| Quadrant | | 2019 | 2019 | Most editors considerQuadrant generally unreliable for factual reporting. The publication is abiased and opinionated source. | 1 |
| Quillette WP:QUILLETTE 📌 | | 2020 | 2021 | There is consensus thatQuillette is generally unreliable for facts, with non-trivial minorities arguing for either full deprecation or "considerations apply".Quillette is primarily a publication of opinion, and thus actual usage in articles will usually be a question of whether or not it isWP:DUE for an attributed opinion rather than whether it is reliable for a factual claim. | 1 |
| Quora WP:QUORA 📌 | | 1234 | 2019 | Quora is aQ&A site. As an Internet forum, it is aself-published source that incorporatesuser-generated content, and is considered generally unreliable. Posts fromverified accounts on Quora can be used asprimary sources forstatements about themselves. Posts from verified accounts of established experts may also be used to substantiate statements in their field of expertise, in accordance with thepolicy on self-published sources. | 1 |
| Radio Free Asia(RFA) WP:RADIOFREEASIA 📌 | | 2021 | 2022 | Radio Free Asia can be generally considered a reliable source. In particularly geopolitically charged areas,attribution of its point of view and funding by the U.S. government may be appropriate. Per the result of a 2021 RfC, editors have established that there is little reason to think RFA demonstrates some systematic inaccuracy, unreliability, or level of government co-option that precludes its use. | 1 |
| Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty(RFE/RL) WP:RFE/RL 📌 | | 2024 2024 2021 | 2024 | Additional considerations apply to the use ofRadio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL). RFE/RL should be used cautiously, if at all, for reporting published from the 1950s to the early 1970s, when RFE/RL had a documented relationship with the CIA. RFE/RL may be biased in some subject areas (particularly through omission of relevant, countervailing facts), and in those areas, it should be attributed in the article body. There is no consensus as to what subject areas require attribution. The scope of topics requiring attribution of RFE/RL should be decided on a case-by-case basis. | 1 |
| Rappler WP:RAPPLER 📌 | | 123 | 2018 | There is consensus that staff content by Rappler is generally reliable. The IMHO section consists of opinions by readers, and not by paid staff. The defunct x.rappler.com section functioned as a self-published blogging service, and is therefore considered generally unreliable. | 1 |
| Rate Your Music(RYM, Cinemos, Glitchwave, Sonemic) WP:RATEYOURMUSIC 📌 WP:RYM 📌 | | 2019 | 2022 | Rate Your Music was deprecated in the 2019 RfC. The content on Rate Your Music isuser-generated, and is considered generally unreliable. | |
| Raw Story WP:RAWSTORY 📌 | | 2021 | 2021 | There is consensus thatRaw Story is generally unreliable for factual reporting, based upon a pattern of publishing false and sensationalized stories. Editors almost unanimously agree that the source isbiased and thatin-text attribution should accompany each use of the source. | 1 |
| RealClearPolitics(RCP, RealClearInvestigations) WP:RealClearPolitics 📌 | | 2021 | 2021 | There is no consensus as to RealClearPolitics's reliability. They appear to have the trappings of a reliable source, but their tactics in news reporting suggest they may be publishing non-factual or misleading information. Use as a source in a Wikipedia article should probably only be done with caution, and better yet should be avoided. | 1 2 |
| Reason WP:REASONMAG 📌 WP:REASONMAGAZINE 📌 WP:REASONNEWS 📌 | | 123 | 2021 | There is consensus thatReason is generally reliable for news and facts. Editors considerReason to be abiased or opinionated source that primarily publishes commentary, analysis, and opinion articles.Statements of opinion should beattributed and evaluated fordue weight. | 1 |
| Red Ventures | | 2024 | 2024 | There is consensus that the online properties of Red Ventures are generally unreliable post-acquisition. Editors express concern that Red Ventures, as a matter of policy, uses AI-authored content on its properties in a non-transparent and unreliable manner. No consensus was reached with respect to Red Ventures' print publications. Sources sold by Red Ventures in 2022 to Fandom were not discussed in the RfC.See also:CNET (November 2022–present),ZDNet (October 2020–present). | |
| Reddit WP:RSREDDIT 📌 WP:RSPREDDIT 📌 | | 123456 | 2023 | Reddit is asocial news and discussion website. Reddit contains mostlyuser-generated content, and is considered bothself-published and generally unreliable. Interview responses written byverified interviewees on ther/IAmA subreddit areprimary sources, and editors disagree on their reliability. The policy on the use ofsources about themselves applies. | 1 |
| RedState | | 12 | 2020 | There is consensus that RedState should not be used as a source of facts. Opinion pieces from RedState are likely to be undue. | 1 |
| The Register("El Reg") | | 12345 | 2017 | The Register is considered generally reliable for technology-related articles. Some editors say thatThe Register isbiased or opinionated on topics involvingWikipedia. | 1 2 |
| Republic TV(Republic World) WP:REPUBLICTV 📌 | | 2021 | 2021 | In the 2021 RfC, there was a consistent and overwhelming consensus to deprecate Republic TV. Editors cite hoaxes, fake news, fabrication, misinformation and conspiracy theories. | 1 2 |
| Reuters WP:REUTERS 📌 | | 123 | 2018 | Reuters is anews agency. There is consensus that Reuters is generally reliable.Syndicated reports from Reuters that are published in other sources are also considered generally reliable.Press releases published by Reuters are not automatically reliable. | 1 |
| RhythmOne(AllMusic,AllMovie pre-2024, AllGame, All Media Guide, AllRovi) WP:ALLMUSIC 📌 | | 29[az] | 2024 | RhythmOne (who acquired All Media Guide, formerly AllRovi) has operated the websitesAllMusic,AllMovie (until 2024), and AllGame (defunct). There is consensus that RhythmOne websites are usable for entertainment reviews within-text attribution. Some editors question the accuracy of these websites forbiographical details and recommend more reliable sources when available. Editors also advise against using AllMusic'sgenre classifications from the website's summaries at the top of a page. Listings without accompanying prose do not count towardnotability.See also:AllMovie, following its acquisition from RhythmOne. | 1 2 3 |
| RIA Novosti WP:RIANOVOSTI 📌 | | 10[ba] | 2024 | RIA Novosti was an official news agency of the Russian government. There is a broad consensus that it is abiased and opinionated source. It is generally considered usable for official government statements and positions. There is no consensus on whether it is reliable for other topics, though opinions generally lean towards unreliability.See also:Sputnik, which replaced the international edition of RIA Novosti. | 1 2 |
| Rolling Stone (culture) WP:ROLLINGSTONE 📌 WP:ROLLINGSTONECULTURE 📌 | | 2021 | 2021 | There is consensus thatRolling Stone has generally reliable coverage on culture matters (i.e., films, music, entertainment, etc.).Rolling Stone'sopinion pieces and reviews, as well as any contentious statements regardingliving persons, should only be used withattribution. The publication'scapsule reviews deserveless weight than their full-length reviews, as they are subject to a lower standard of fact-checking. See alsoRolling Stone (politics and society), 2011–present,Rolling Stone (Culture Council). | 1 |
| Rolling Stone (politics and society, 2011–present) WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS 📌 | | 2021 | 2023 | According to a 2021 RfC discussion, there is unanimous consensus among editors thatRolling Stone is generally unreliable for politically and societally sensitive issues reported since 2011 (inclusive), though it must be borne in mind that this date is an estimate and not a definitive cutoff, as the deterioration of journalistic practices happened gradually. Some editors have said that low-quality reporting also appeared in some preceding years, but a specific date after which the articles are considered generally unreliable has not been proposed. Previous consensus was thatRolling Stone was generally reliable for political and societal topics before 2011. Most editors say thatRolling Stone is apartisan source in the field of politics, and that their statements in this field should beattributed. Moreover,medical orscientific claims should not be sourced to the publication. | 1 |
| Rolling Stone (Culture Council) | | 2021 | 2021 | There is unanimous consensus among editors thatCulture Council articles (of URL form rollingstone.com/culture-council/*) areself-published sources and are, in most aspects, equivalent toForbes- andHuffPost-contributors. Editors, however, have also expressed concern that at least some of the content published ispromotional and thus not usable. Editors should thus determine on a case-by-case basis whether the opinions published there areindependent and also if they constitutedue weight. Usage of these sources forthird-party claims inbiographies of living persons as well asmedical or scientific claims is not allowed. | 1 2 |
| Rotten Tomatoes WP:ROTTENTOMATOES 📌 WP:ROTTEN TOMATOES 📌 | | 2023 +16[bb] | 2024 | Rotten Tomatoes is considered generally reliable for its review aggregation and its news articles on film and TV. There is no consensus on whether its blog articles and critic opinion pages are generally reliable for facts. There is consensus that user reviews on Rotten Tomatoes are generally unreliable, as they areself-published sources. Reviewers tracked by Rotten Tomatoes are not automatically reliable for their reviews, while there is no consensus on whether their "Top Critics" are generally reliable. There is consensus that Rotten Tomatoes should not be used for biographical information, cast and crew data, or other film and television data, as it is sourced from user-generated and user-provided content with a lack of oversight and verification. | 1 |
| Royal Central | | 2022 | 2022 | The 2022 RfC found a consensus to deprecate Royal Central on the grounds that it lacked serious editorial standards and hosted plagiarized content. | 1 |
| RT(Russia Today, ANO TV-Novosti,Ruptly, Redfish,Maffick) | | 2020 | 2022 | There is consensus that RT is an unreliable source, publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated. Many editors describe RT as a mouthpiece of the Russian government that engages in propaganda and disinformation. | |
| RTÉ(Raidió Teilifís Éireann) | | 2023 | 2023 | RTÉ is an Irishpublic service broadcaster. There is consensus that RTÉ is generally reliable. | 1 |
| Salon WP:SALON.COM 📌 | | 10[bd] | 2023 | There is no consensus on the reliability ofSalon. Editors considerSalonbiased or opinionated, and its statements should beattributed. | 1 |
| Science-Based Medicine WP:SBM 📌 | | 2019 | 2025 | There is a general consensus that at least some articles onScience-Based Medicine can be consideredself-published, and substantial disagreement over whether the site's editorial control is adequate, with even some partial supports acknowledging that material on the site may not be substantially reviewed if reviewed at all. As such, material from this site should be used with caution, probablywith attribution, and should not on its own be used to support negative or controversial content in BLPs. Particular articles from the site may still be reliable on the basis of self-published sources by experts; those should be considered on an individual basis. | 1 |
| ScienceBlogs | | 1234567 | 2012 | ScienceBlogs is an invitation-only network of blogs. There is no consensus on the reliability of ScienceBlogs articles in general. Most editors consider ScienceBlogs articles written bysubject-matter experts reliable, though articles outside the writer's relevant field are not. As aself-published source it should not be used as a source of information onother living persons. Since it often coversfringe material,parity of sources may be relevant. | 1 |
| ScienceDirect topic page | | 1234 | 2023 | ScienceDirect is an online bibliographical database run by Elsevier. In addition to academic publications, the website maintains machine-generated "topic pages" consisting of quotations from publications in the database. These topic pages change over time, presenting a challenge toverifiability. Citations should be made to the actual, underlying publications quoted by the topic page. | 1 |
| Scientific American(SA,SciAm) | | 12 | 2020 | Scientific American is considered generally reliable forpopular science content. UseWP:MEDPOP to determine whether the publication's medical coverage should be used. | 1 |
| SCOTUSblog WP:RSPSCOTUSBLOG 📌 | | 2021 | 2021 | In a 2021 RfC, there was strong consensus thatSCOTUSblog isgenerally reliable for law-related topics. Some authors onSCOTUSblog aresubject-matter experts, but editors do not consider the website anacademic source. Editors recommendin-text attribution forSCOTUSblog'sopinion and analysis articles. | 1 |
| Screen Rant | | 2021 | 2021 | There is consensus thatScreen Rant is a marginally reliable source. It is considered reliable for entertainment-related topics, but should not be used for controversial statements related toliving persons. | 1 |
| Scribd | | 1234 | 2016 | Scribd operates a self-publishing platform for documents and audiobooks. It is considered generally unreliable, especially forbiographies of living persons. Anyone can upload any document they like and there is no assurance that it hasn't been manipulated. Many documents on Scribd's self-publishing platform violate copyrights, so linking to them from Wikipedia would also violate theWP:COPYVIOEL guideline and theWP:COPYVIO policy. If a particular document hosted on the platform is in itself reliable, editors are advised to cite the source without linking to the Scribd entry. | 1 |
| Scriptural texts(e.g.Bible,Quran) WP:RSPSCRIPTURE 📌 | | 2020 | 2021 | Scriptural texts, like theBible and theQuran, areprimary sources only suitable for attributed, relevant quotes and in compliance with other Wikipedia content policies and guidelines. Content that interprets or summarizes scriptural passages or narratives should generally be cited to appropriate scholarly sources (for example, in the academic field ofreligious studies) andattributed when appropriate. Analysis of scriptural content by Wikipedia editors is prohibited by theWikipedia policy regarding original research, and a 2020 discussion found no consensus on whether unsourced summaries of scriptual texts should be allowed underMOS:PLOTSOURCE. | — |
| Sherdog | | 2020 | 2020 | In the 2020 RfC, Sherdog was determined to be notself-published and can be used for basic information on MMA fighters and matches. However, it is considered less reliable thanESPN and other generally reliable sources, so use with caution. | 1 |
| Simple Flying WP:RSPSIMPLEFLYING 📌 WP:SIMPLEFLYING 📌 | | 123 | 2023 | Simple Flying is generally unreliable as a blog without a reputation for fact checking or reliability. | 1 |
| Sixth Tone (general topics) WP:SIXTHTONE 📌 | | 2020 | 2020 | Sixth Tone is usable for general non-political topics, such as Chinese society and culture.See also:Sixth Tone (politics). | 1 |
| Sixth Tone (politics) | | 2020 | 2020 | Sixth Tone is published by theShanghai United Media Group, which is government-controlled. Editors considerSixth Tone generally unreliable for politics.See also:Sixth Tone (general topics). | 1 |
| The Skeptic's Dictionary | | 1234 | 2020 | The Skeptic's Dictionary is a book byRobert Todd Carroll that expanded into a website. The website is aself-published source (by a subject-matter expert) and should not be used as a source of information onother living persons.Attribution may be necessary. In some cases, it's preferable to read and cite the sources cited byThe Skeptic's Dictionary. As it often coversfringe material,parity of sources may be relevant. | 1 |
| Skeptical Inquirer | | 2022 | 2022 | A2022 RfC established reasonably clear consensus thatSkeptical Inquirer is generally reliable.ArbCom previously found that it is not considered aself-published source, and that it should be used in a manner similar to other opinion sources. | 1 |
| The Skwawkbox | | 123 | 2024 | The Skwawkbox is considered generally unreliable because it isself-published. Most editors describeThe Skwawkbox asbiased or opinionated. | 1 |
| Sky News Australia | | 2022 | 2024 | In the 2022 RfC, there is a consensus that additional considerations apply to Sky News Australia, and that it should not be used to substantiate any exceptional claims. The talk shows for Sky News Australia engage in disinformation and should be considered generally unreliable. The majority of articles labeled as "news" contain short blurbs and video segments, which should similarly be considered unreliable. For articles with significant written content, caution is advised. Sky News Australia is not to be confused with the UKSky News; the two are presently unaffiliated. | 1 |
| Sky News (UK) | | 1234 | 2024 | Sky News (UK) is considered an ordinaryWP:NEWSORG and is thus presumed generally reliable. Sky News UK is unaffiliated with Sky News Australia. Sky News UK has partial ownership of Sky News Arabia. | 1 |
| Snopes WP:SNOPES 📌 | | 15[be] | 2021 | Snopes is certified by theInternational Fact-Checking Network, and is considered generally reliable.Attribution may be necessary. Since it often coversfringe material,parity of sources may be relevant. | 1 |
| Social Blade | | 2024 | 2024 | Editors consider Social Blade, a social media analytics website, reliable when it comes to objective statistics and data. This does not apply to the site's "grades", "rankings", and "estimated earnings" information, which have dubious methodologies. There is consensus that Social Blade is ineffective in determining notability as it is a primary source. | 1 |
| SourceWatch | | 123 | 2016 | As anopen wiki, SourceWatch is considered generally unreliable. SourceWatch is operated by theCenter for Media and Democracy. | 1 |
| The South African | | 2024 | 2024 | The South African was ruled as no-consensus on reliability in the 2024 RfC, however there have been issues relating to plagiarism from Wikipedia within some articles. Consensus was to make additional considerations, pending any further instances of copying. | 1 |
| South China Morning Post(SCMP,Sunday Morning Post) WP:SCMP 📌 | | 2020 | 2020 | TheSouth China Morning Post is widely considered to be the English-languagenewspaper of record in Hong Kong. In the 2020 RFC, there was consensus that theSCMP is generally reliable. However, in addition, there is a rough consensus that additional considerations may apply for the newspaper's coverage of certain topics, including theChinese Communist Party and theSCMP's current owner,Alibaba. Editors may apply higher scrutiny when dealing with theSCMP's coverage of such topics. | 1 |
| Southern Poverty Law Center(SPLC) WP:SPLC 📌 | | 20[bf] | 2022 | The Southern Poverty Law Center is considered generally reliable on topics related tohate groups andextremism in the United States. As an advocacy group, the SPLC is abiased and opinionated source. The organization's views, especially when labeling hate groups, should beattributed perWP:RSOPINION. Take care to ensure that content from the SPLC constitutesdue weight in the article and conforms to thebiographies of living persons policy. Some editors have questioned the reliability of the SPLC on non-United States topics. SPLC classifications should not automatically be included in the lead section of the article about the group which received the classification. The decision to include should rather be decided on a case-by-case basis. | 1 |
| SouthFront(South Front) WP:SOUTHFRONT 📌 | | 2019 | 2020 | Due to persistent abuse,SouthFront is on theWikipedia spam blacklist, and links must bewhitelisted before they can be used.SouthFront was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed unanimous consensus that the site publishesfake news and Russian propaganda. The use ofSouthFront as a reference should be generally prohibited, especially when other sources exist that are morereliable.SouthFront should not be used for determiningnotability, or used as asecondary source in articles. | 1 2 |
| Space.com | | 12 | 2021 | Space.com may be reliable for astronomy and spaceflight news, and has a reputation for being generally accurate. Space.com articles often have a sensational tone, which might degrade their quality, so it is necessary to check the author's qualification below the article. Care should also be taken as the site publishes a lot of syndicated material and is prone to occasionalchurnalism. | 1 |
| SparkNotes | | 12 | 2018 | SparkNotes is astudy guide. Editors consider SparkNotes usable for superficial analyses of literature, and recommend supplementing SparkNotes citations with additional sources. | 1 |
| The Spectator WP:SPECTATOR 📌 | | 12 | 2020 | The Spectator primarily consists of opinion pieces and these should be judged byWP:RSOPINION,WP:RSEDITORIAL, andWP:NEWSBLOG. | 1 2 |
| Der Spiegel(Spiegel Online,SPON) | | 10[bg] | 2018 | There is consensus thatDer Spiegel is generally reliable. Articles written byClaas Relotius are fabrications, and are thus unreliable. | 1 |
| Spirit of Metal | | 12 | 2010 | Spirit of Metal is considered aself-published source and generally unreliable. | 1 |
| Sports Illustrated (pre-June 2019) WP:RSPSI 📌 | | 123 | 2025 | There is a general consensus that work bySports Illustrated pre-acquisition byMaven Networks in June 2019 is considered generally reliable for sports-related news. | 1 |
| Sports Illustrated (June 2019–present) | | 123 | 2025 | There is a general consensus that at least some articles bySports Illustrated post-acquisition byMaven Networks in June 2019 are considered unreliable. Following the purchase, Maven employed independent contractors for low pay and no benefits to write for the magazine, leading to a gradual decline in quality. This culminated in November 2023 when it was revealed that artificial intelligence (AI) had been used to write product review articles with little to no human oversight. While some veteran writers recognized as subject matter experts remain reliable on a case-by-case basis, editors should exercise caution to ensure that articles were not produced by AI or uncredited authors bylined as "SI Staff". | 1 |
| Sportskeeda WP:SPORTSKEEDA 📌 | | 1234 | 2023 | Sportskeeda is considered generally unreliable due to a consensus that there is little or no editorial oversight over the website's content, which is largely user-written. | 1 |
| Sputnik WP:SPUTNIK 📌 | | 2020 | 2022 | There is consensus that Sputnik is an unreliable source that publishes false or fabricated information, and should bedeprecated as in the2017 RfC of theDaily Mail. Sputnik is considered a Russian propaganda outlet that engages in bias and disinformation,[27] a significant proportion of editors endorse that view, with some editors considering it less reliable thanBreitbart News.See also:RIA Novosti, whose international edition was replaced by Sputnik. | |
| Stack Exchange(Stack Overflow,MathOverflow,Ask Ubuntu) | | 123 | 2023 | Stack Exchange is a network ofQ&A sites, includingStack Overflow,MathOverflow, andAsk Ubuntu. As an Internet forum, it is aself-published source that incorporatesuser-generated content, and is considered generally unreliable. | |
| StarsUnfolded | | 123 | 2020 | There is consensus that StarsUnfolded is unreliable as it is aself-published source. | 1 |
| Statista WP:STATISTA 📌 | | 12345 | 2023 | Statista aggregates statistical information from a number of sources, many of which are reliable. It is not the source of the statistics it displays, so should not be cited directly. It may be useful as a research tool to find sources of statistical information. | 1 |
| The Straits Times | | 2021 | 2024 | The Straits Times is the largest newspaper in Singapore. There is consensus that it is generally reliable so long as the Singapore government is not involved in its coverage. However, since Singapore has a poor record on freedom of speech and press, and given known practices of self-censorship and political meddling into coverage, news related to Singapore politics, particularly for contentious claims, should be taken with a grain of salt. | 1 |
| The Sun (UK)(The Sun on Sunday,The Irish Sun,The Scottish Sun,The U.S. Sun) WP:THESUN 📌 | | 2019 2024
| 2024 | The Sun was deprecated in the 2019 RfC. There is consensus thatThe Sun is generally unreliable.References fromThe Sun are actively discouraged from being used in any article and they should not be used for determining thenotability of any subject. The RfC does not overrideWP:ABOUTSELF, which allows the use ofThe Sun for uncontroversial self-descriptions. Some editors considerThe Sun usable for uncontroversial sports reporting, although more reliable sources are recommended. This deprecation does not apply to the broadsheet publication of the same name, that existed from 1964–1969. | |
| Swarajya | | 123 | 2021 | Due to persistent abuse,Swarajya is on theWikipedia spam blacklist, and links must bewhitelisted before they can be used.Swarajya is considered generally unreliable due to its poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. In the2020 discussion, most editors expressed support fordeprecatingSwarajya. Editors consider the publicationbiased or opinionated.Swarajya was formerly the parent publication ofOpIndia, and frequently republishes content from OpIndia under the "Swarajya Staff"byline.See also:OpIndia. | 1 |
| The Sydney Morning Herald | | 2021 | 2022 | There is consensus thatThe Sydney Morning Herald is generally reliable. | 1 |
| Taki's Magazine(Takimag,Taki's Top Drawer) | | 2019 | 2019 | Taki's Magazine was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that it is an unreliable opinion magazine that should be avoided outside of very limited exceptions (e.g.WP:ABOUTSELF). | 1 |
| Tasnim News Agency WP:TASNIMNEWSAGENCY 📌 | | 2024 | 2024 | Tasnim News Agency was deprecated in the 2024 RfC due to being anIRGC-controlled outlet that disseminates state propaganda and conspiracy theories. | 1 |
| TASS(ITAR-TASS, Telegraph Agency of the Soviet Union, Information Telegraph Agency of Russia) WP:TASS 📌 | | 2019 2022 | 2022 | In a 2022 RfC, editors achieved a strong consensus that TASS is abiased source with respect to topics in which the Russian government may have an interest and that the source is generally unreliable for providing contentious facts in that context. Editors attained a rough consensus that TASS should not be deprecated at this time and a rough consensus that TASS is generally unreliable more broadly for facts, with the caveat that it is considered reliable for quotes of statements made by the Kremlin, the Russian State, and pro-Kremlin politicians. A previous2019 RfC had concluded that reliability is unclear or additional considerations apply. | 1 2 |
| TechCrunch WP:TECHCRUNCH 📌 | | 1234 | 2018 | Careful consideration should be given to whether a piece is written by staff or as a part of their blog, as well as whether the piece/writer may have a conflict of interest, and to what extent they rely on public relations material from their subject for their writing. TechCrunch may be useful for satisfyingverifiability, but may be less useful for the purpose of determiningnotability. | 1 |
| TED | | 12 | 2024 | TED content (fromted.com or youtube.com) may be validRS, assuming the speaker is considered reliable and an expert on what they are talking about. Content about the speaker themselves should abide byABOUTSELF andWEIGHT. TedX content has no quality standard or editorial oversight. | 1 |
| Telesur WP:TELESUR 📌 | | 2019 | 2019 | Telesur was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the TV channel is aBolivarian propaganda outlet. Many editors state that Telesur publishes false information. As astate-owned media network in a country with lowpress freedom, Telesur may be aprimary source for the viewpoint of the Venezuelan government, althoughdue weight should be considered. Telesur isbiased or opinionated, and its statements should beattributed. | 1 2 |
| ThinkProgress | | 2013 | 2013 | Discussions ofThinkProgress are dated, with the most recent in 2013. Circumstances may have changed. Some considerThinkProgress a form ofWP:NEWSBLOG, and reliable forattributed statements of opinion. Others argue thatThinkProgress is generally reliable underWP:NEWSORG, albeit with due consideration for their political leanings.ThinkProgress is generally considered apartisan source for the purposes of American politics.ThinkProgress shut down in 2019; website content is still accessible. | 1 |
| Time | | 12345 | 2024 | There is consensus thatTime is generally reliable.Time'smagazine blogs, including Techland, should be handled with the appropriate policy. Refer toWP:NEWSORG for guidance onop-eds, which should only be used withattribution. | 1 |
| The Times(The Times of London,The London Times,The Sunday Times) WP:THETIMES 📌 | | 2022 +10[bj] | 2023 | The Times, including its sister paperThe Sunday Times, is considered generally reliable. | 1 2 3 |
| The Times of Israel WP:TIMESOFISRAEL 📌 | | 2024 | 2024 | In the 2024 RfC, there was consensus thatThe Times of Israel is generally reliable, although potentially biased in certain areas. ToI disclaims responsibility for the contents of the blogs section (which is written by third parties) though experts' blog posts may be sometimes usable per the guidance atWP:BLOGS. | 1 |
| The Times of India (post-1950)(TOI) WP:TIMESOFINDIA 📌 | | 2020 2024 | 2024 | Additional considerations apply to articles published inThe Times of India (TOI) after 1950.TOI has sometimes had a poor reputation for fact-checking and its use should be evaluated with caution. Editors should ensure that they do not usepaid advertorials—which were first published inTOI in 1950 at the earliest—to verify information or establish notability. Paid advertorials may be of particular concern in topics such as entertainment. Editors should also be aware thatTOI may have published at least one AI-generated article. | 1 2 |
| TMZ WP:TMZ 📌 | | 14[bk] | 2022 | There is no consensus on the reliability of TMZ. Although TMZ is cited by reliable sources, most editors consider TMZ a low-quality source and prefer more reliable sources when available. Because TMZ frequently publishes articles based on rumor and speculation without named sources, it is recommended to explicitlyattribute statements to TMZ if used. When TMZ is the only source for a piece of information, consider also whether the information constitutesdue or undue weight, especially when the subject is aliving person. | 1 |
| TorrentFreak(TF) | | 12345678 | 2019 | Most editors consider TorrentFreak generally reliable on topics involving file sharing. Editors note references to the website in mainstream media. The source may or may not be reliable for other topics. | 1 |
| Town and Village Guide (UK) | | 1 | 2024 | As of 2024, there is consensus that Town and Village Guide is a directory service scraping Google Maps and is probably AI-generated. It lacks information as to its publisher, fact checking, and editorial board, making it aself-published source. | 1 |
| Townhall | | 123 | 2018 | As of 2010, a few editors commented that opinion pieces in Townhall are reliable as a source for the opinion of the author of the individual piece, although they may not be reliable forunattributed statements of fact, and context will dictate whether the opinion of the author as such, meets the standard ofWP:DUEWEIGHT. | 1 |
| TRT World(TRT, Türkiye Radyo ve Televizyon, Turkish Radio and Television) WP:TRT 📌 | | 2019 | 2022 | Consensus exists that TRT World is reliable for statements regarding the official views of the Turkish government but not reliable for subjects with which the Turkish government could be construed to have a conflict of interest. For other miscellaneous cases, it shall be assumed to be reliable enough. | 1 |
| The Truth About Guns(TTAG) WP:TTAG 📌 | | 123 | 2019 | The Truth About Guns is agroup blog. There is consensus that TTAG does not have a strong reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. TTAG has promotedconspiracy theories, and does not clearly label itssponsored content. Editors agree that TTAG isbiased or opinionated. Opinions in TTAG are likely to constituteundue weight. | 1 |
| TV.com | | 123456 | 2020 | TV.com was largelyuser-generated and generally unreliable. Some editors believe material published by its own staff may be cited. TV.com shut down in July 2021; website content is no longer accessible unless archived. | 1 |
| TV Guide | | 12345 | 2024 | TV Guide is considered generally reliable for television-related topics. Some editors considerTV Guide aprimary source for air dates. | 1 2 |
| TV Tropes WP:RSPTVTROPES 📌 | | 123 | 2023 | TV Tropes is considered generally unreliable because it is anopen wiki, which is a type ofself-published source. | 1 |
| Twitter(X) WP:RSPTWITTER 📌 WP:RSPX 📌 | | 50[bl] | 2025 | Twitter (rebranded to X since July 2023) is a social network. As aself-published source, it is considered generally unreliable and should be avoided unless the author is asubject-matter expert or the tweet is used for anuncontroversial self-description. In most cases, Twitter accounts should only be cited if the user's identity is confirmed in some way. Tweets that are not covered by reliable sources are likely to constituteundue weight. Twitter should never be used forthird-party claims claims related toliving persons. | 1 1 |
| The Unz Review WP:UNZ 📌 | | 2021 | 2024 | The Unz Review was deprecated bysnowball clause consensus in the 2021 RfC. Editors cite racist, antisemitic, pseudoscientific and fringe content. The site's extensive archive of journal reprints includes many apparentcopyright violations. | 1 2 |
| Urban Dictionary | | 123 | 2020 | Urban Dictionary is considered generally unreliable, because it consists solely ofuser-generated content. | 1 |
| U.S. News & World Report | | 123 | 2020 | There is consensus thatU.S. News & World Report is generally reliable. | 1 |
| Us Weekly WP:USWEEKLY 📌 | | 12345 | 2018 | There is no consensus on the reliability ofUs Weekly. It is often considered less reliable thanPeople magazine.See also:People | 1 |
| USA Today WP:USATODAY 📌 | | 123456 | 2024 | There is consensus that staff-written articles onUSA Today are generally reliable. Editors note the publication's robust editorial process and itscentrist alignment. Some content is written bycontributors with minimal editorial oversight, and is generally unreliable. | 1 2 |
| Vanity Fair WP:VANITYFAIR 📌 | | 1234 | 2021 | Vanity Fair is considered generally reliable, including forpopular culture topics. Some editors say it isbiased or opinionated. | 1 |
| Variety WP:VARIETY 📌 | | 12345 | 2016 | As an entertainment trade magazine,Variety is considered a reliable source in its field. | 1 |
| VDARE | | 2018 | 2019 | VDARE was deprecated in the 2018 RfC. Editors agree that it is generally unusable as a source, although there may be rare exceptions such as in identifying its writers in anabout-self fashion. Such limited instances will only be under careful and guided ("filtered") discretion. | 1 |
| Venezuelanalysis WP:VENEZUELANALYSIS 📌 | | 2019 2023 | 2023 | There is consensus that Venezuelanalysis is generally unreliable. Some editors consider Venezuelanalysis aBolivarian propaganda outlet, and most editors question its accuracy and editorial oversight. Almost all editors describe the site asbiased or opinionated, so its claims should beattributed. | 1 |
| VentureBeat | | 12 AB | 2015 | VentureBeat is considered generally reliable for articles relating to businesses, technology and video games. | 1 |
| The Verge | | 2018 | 2024 | There is broad consensus thatThe Verge is areliable source for use in articles relating to technology, science, and automobiles. Some editors question the quality ofThe Verge's instructional content oncomputer hardware.See also:Vox,Polygon,New York | 1 |
| Veterans Today | | 2019 | 2019 | Due to persistent abuse,Veterans Today is on theWikipedia spam blacklist, and links must bewhitelisted before they can be used.Veterans Today was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed unanimous consensus that the site publishesfake news andantisemiticconspiracy theories. The use ofVeterans Today as a reference should be generally prohibited, especially when other sources exist that are morereliable.Veterans Today should not be used for determiningnotability, or used as asecondary source in articles. | 1 2 |
| VGChartz | | 2019 +10[bm] | 2019 | In the 2019 RfC, editors unanimously agreed that VGChartz is generally unreliable. The site consists mainly of news articles that qualify asuser-generated content. In addition, editors heavily criticize VGChartz for poor accuracy standards in its video game sales data, and its methodology page consists of wholly unverified claims.[28] If sources that are more reliable publish video game sales data for certain regions (usuallyThe NPD Group,Chart-Track, and/orMedia Create), it is strongly advised that editors cite those sources instead. | 1 |
| Vice Media(Garage,Vice,Vice News,Motherboard) WP:VICE 📌 | | 17[bn] | 2024 | There is no consensus on the reliability ofVice Media publications. | 1 2 3 |
| Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation(VOC) | | 12 | 2021 | The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation is an Americananti-communist think tank andblog, considered to be an unreliable source due to misinformation and a generally poor reputation for fact checking and accuracy. | 1 |
| The Village Voice | | 123456789 | 2024 | There is consensus among editors thatThe Village Voice is generally reliable. It is analternativenewsweekly that has received multiplePulitzer Prizes. | 1 |
| Vogue | | 1234 | 2018 | Vogue is considered generally reliable. Potentially contentious statements made byVogue interview subjects can beattributed to the individual. | 1 |
| Voice of America(VOA, VoA) WP:RSPVOA 📌 | | 2021 | 2024 | Voice of America is an Americanstate-ownedinternational radio broadcaster. It is considered to be generally reliable, though some editors express concerns regarding its neutrality and editorial independence from the U.S. government. | 1 |
| Voltaire Network | | 2020
| 2020 | The Voltaire Network is considered unreliable due to its affiliation with conspiracy theoristThierry Meyssan and its republication of articles fromGlobal Research. Editors unanimously agreed to deprecate the Voltaire Network in the 2020 RfC. | 1 |
| Vox(Recode) WP:RSPVOX 📌 | | 1234567 | 2024 | Vox is considered generally reliable. Some editors say thatVox does not always delineate reporting and opinion content or that it is apartisan source in the field of politics.See also:Polygon,The Verge,New York | 1 |
| The Wall Street Journal(WSJ) WP:WSJ 📌 | | 1234567 | 2024 | Most editors considerThe Wall Street Journal generally reliable for news. UseWP:NEWSBLOG to evaluate the newspaper's blogs, including Washington Wire. UseWP:RSOPINION for opinion pieces. | 1 |
| Washington Examiner | | 12345678 | 2020 | There is no consensus on the reliability of theWashington Examiner, but there is consensus that it should not be used to substantiateexceptional claims. Almost all editors consider theWashington Examiner apartisan source and believe that statements from this publication should beattributed. TheWashington Examiner publishesopinion columns, which should be handled by following the appropriate guideline. | 1 |
| Washington Free Beacon WP:FREEBEACON 📌 | | 123 | 2020 | Most editors consider theWashington Free Beacon to be generally unreliable as a source, particularly for material about BLPs or political topics. There was no consensus to deprecate it in a 2020 discussion. | 1 |
| The Washington Post(The Post,WaPo,TWP) WP:WAPO 📌 | | 20[bo] | 2024 | Most editors considerThe Washington Post generally reliable. Some editors note thatWP:NEWSBLOG should be used to evaluate blog posts onThe Washington Post's website. | 1 |
| The Washington Times | | 2021 | 2021 | There is consensus thatThe Washington Times is a marginally reliable source for politics and science. Most editors agree that it is apartisan source. Some editors noted a history of publishing inaccurate or false information, of being slow to issue retractions or corrections, and of sometimes only doing so under the threat of legal action; a considerable minority favored deprecation on these grounds.The Washington Times is probably suitable for its mundane political coverage, although better sources should be preferred when available.The Washington Times should generally not be used for contentious claims, especially aboutliving persons. A majority of editors regardThe Washington Times as generally reliable for topics other than politics and science. Opinion columns are governed byWP:RSOPINION andWP:NEWSBLOG. Some editors observed thatThe Washington Times has aconflict of interest regarding theUnification movement and related topics. | 1 |
| WatchMojo WP:WATCHMOJO 📌 | | 1 | 2020 | WatchMojo is a site that publishes Internet videos consisting of rankinglisticles. The site is considered generally unreliable due to poor fact checking and editorial oversight, and for failing to disclose its methodology. | 1 |
| Weather2Travel.com | | 12 | 2012 | Weather2Travel is a website operated by UK-based Global Support Limited. It expressly disclaims all content as indicative only and unfit to be relied upon. Some editors expressed concerns it may have a conflict of interest by way of some commercial ties. | 1 |
| The Weekly Standard | | 123 | 2014 | The Weekly Standard was considered generally reliable, but much of their published content wasopinion and should beattributed as such. Most editors say this magazine was apartisan source.The Weekly Standard shut down in 2018; website content is no longer available unless archived. | 1 |
| The Western Journal(Western Journalism) | | 2019 | 2019 | In the 2019 RfC, there was consensus thatThe Western Journal is generally unreliable, but no consensus on whetherThe Western Journal should be deprecated. The publication'ssyndicated content should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher. | 1 |
| We Got This Covered WP:WEGOTTHISCOVERED 📌 | | 123 | 2022 | We Got This Covered is generally unreliable due to its lack of editorial oversight, publication of unsubstantiated or false rumors, speculation claimed as fact, and accepting contributions from non-staff contributors. | 1 |
| Wen Wei Po WP:WENWEIPO 📌 | | 2020 | 2020 | Wen Wei Po was deprecated in the 2020 RfC as a state-owned Hong Kong propaganda outlet that has published falsified information. | 1 |
| WhatCulture WP:WHATCULTURE 📌 | | 123 | 2023 | WhatCulture is considered generally unreliable. Contributors "do not need to have any relevant experience or hold any particular qualifications" and editors note a poor record of fact checking.It is listed as an unreliable source by WikiProject Professional wrestling. | 1 |
| Who's Who (UK) | | 2022 | 2022 | Who's Who (UK) is considered generally unreliable due to its poor editorial standards and history of publishing false or inaccurate information. Its content is supplied primarily by its subjects, so it should be regarded as aself-published source.See also:Marquis Who's Who. | 1 |
| WhoSampled WP:WHOSAMPLED 📌 | | 12 | 2016 | WhoSampled is almost entirely composed ofuser-generated content, and is aself-published source. | 1 |
| Wikidata WP:RSPWD 📌 | | 20132018 | 2024 | Wikidata is largely user-generated, and articles should not directly cite Wikidata as a source (just as it would be inappropriate to cite other Wikipedias' articles as sources).See also:Wikidata transcluded statements. | 1 |
| Wikidata transcluded statements WP:RSPWDTRANS 📌 | | 20132018 | 2018 | Uniquely among WMF sites, Wikidata's statements can be directly transcluded into articles; this is usually done to provide external links or infobox data. For example, more than two million external links from Wikidata are shown through the{{Authority control}} template. There has been controversy over the use of Wikidata in the English Wikipedia due to its infancy, its vandalism issues and its sourcing. While there is no consensus on whether information from Wikidata should be used at all, there is general agreement that any Wikidata statements transcluded need to be just as – or more – reliable compared to Wikipedia content. As such,Module:WikidataIB and some related modules and templates filter unsourced Wikidata statements by default; however, other modules and templates, such asModule:Wikidata, do not.See also:Wikidata (direct citations). | — |
| WikiLeaks WP:RSPWIKILEAKS 📌 | | 2021 17[bp] | 2024 | WikiLeaks is a repository ofprimary source documentsleaked byanonymous sources. No consensus exists on its reliability. Some editors questioned the applicability of reliability ratings to Wikileaks. Some editors believe that documents from WikiLeaks fail theverifiability policy, because WikiLeaks does not adequately authenticate them, and there are concerns regarding whether the documents are genuine or tampered. It may be appropriate to cite a document from WikiLeaks as aprimary source, but only if it is discussed by areliable source. However, linking to material that violates copyright is prohibited byWP:COPYLINK. | 1 |
| Wikinews WP:RSPWIKINEWS 📌 | | 123456789 | 2024 | Most editors believe that Wikinews articles do not meet Wikipedia'sverifiability standards. As Wikinews does not enforce a strong editorial policy, many editors consider the site equivalent to aself-published source, which is generally unreliable. | 1 |
| Wikipedia(includingThe Signpost) WP:RSPWP 📌 | | 22[bq] | 2024 | Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source becauseopen wikis areself-published sources. This includes articles, non-article pages,The Signpost, non-English Wikipedias,Wikipedia Books, andWikipedia mirrors; seeWP:CIRCULAR for guidance.[29] Occasionally, inexperienced editors may unintentionally cite the Wikipedia article about a publication instead of the publication itself; in these cases, fix the citation instead of removing it. Although citing Wikipedia as a source is against policy, content can be copied between articles with proper attribution; seeWP:COPYWITHIN for instructions. | 1 |
| The Wire (India) | | 2023 | 2023 | The Wire is considered generally reliable under thenews organizations guideline. | 1 2 3 |
| Wired(Wired UK) | | 123456 | 2018 | Wired magazine is considered generally reliable for science and technology. | 1 2 |
| WordPress.com WP:RSPWORDPRESS 📌 | | 16[br] | 2023 | WordPress.com is ablog hosting service that runs on theWordPress software. As aself-published source, it is considered generally unreliable and should be avoided unless the author is asubject-matter expert or the blog is used foruncontroversial self-descriptions. WordPress.com should never be used for claims related toliving persons; this includes interviews, as even those cannot be authenticated. | 1 |
| World Christian Database,World Christian Encyclopedia, andWorld Religion Database(WCD,WCE,WRD) WP:WCD 📌 WP:WCE 📌 WP:WRD 📌 | | 2022 2024 | 2024 | Additional considerations apply to the use of theWorld Christian Database,World Christian Encyclopedia, andWorld Religion Database. Editors should attribute factual information derived from the sources and they should generally not use them if other reliable sources are available. Scholars have advanced strong methodological critiques of the sources. However, they are published byOxford University Press,Edinburgh University Press, andBrill, and they are used with caution by reliable sources, including thePew Research Center, Oxford Handbooks, andCambridge reference works (some postdating the methodological critiques). | 1 2 3 |
| WorldNetDaily(WND) WP:WND 📌 | | 2018
| 2018 | WorldNetDaily was deprecated in the 2018 RfC. There is clear consensus thatWorldNetDaily is not a reliable source, and that it should not be used because of its particularly poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The website is known for promoting falsehoods andconspiracy theories. Most editors considerWorldNetDaily apartisan source.WorldNetDaily'ssyndicated content should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher, and the citation should preferably point to the original publisher. | 1 2 |
| Worldometer(Worldometers) | | 123 | 2020 | Worldometer is aself-published source and editors have questioned its accuracy and methodology. It isdisallowed byWikiProject COVID-19 as a source for statistics on theCOVID-19 pandemic and is considered generally unreliable for other topics. | 1 |
| World Socialist Web Site (WSWS) WP:WSWS 📌 | | 10[bt] | 2024 | The World Socialist Web Site is the online news and information publication of theInternational Committee of the Fourth International, aTrotskyist political organisation. Most editors consider it to be reliable for theattributedopinions of its authors. There is no consensus on whether it is reliable for factual reporting. If used, it must be evaluated fordue weight as it is anopinionated source. Some editors suggest that it may be more reliable for news related to labor issues. | 1 |
| TheWrap | | 12 | 2017 | As an industry trade publication, there is consensus thatTheWrap is a good source for entertainment news and media analysis. There is no consensus regarding the reliability ofTheWrap's articles on other topics. | 1 |
| XBIZ | | 2021 | 2021 | XBIZ is considered generally reliable for the adult industry. However, it publishes press releases/sponsored content without clearly delineating the distinction between their own journalism and the promotional content of others. Thus, editors should take care that the source is not used for content obviously or likely to be promotional. | 1 |
| Xinhua News Agency(New China News Agency) WP:XINHUA 📌 | | 2020 | 2021 | Xinhua News Agency is the official state-run press agency of the People's Republic of China. There is consensus that Xinhua is generally reliable for factual reporting except in areas where the government of China may have a reason to use it for propaganda or disinformation. Xinhua is also generally reliable for the views and positions of the Chinese government and its officials. For subjects where the Chinese government may be a stakeholder, the consensus is almost unanimous that Xinhua cannot be trusted to cover them accurately and dispassionately; some editors favour outright deprecation because of its lack ofeditorial independence. There is no consensus for applying any one single label to the whole of the agency. Caution should be exercised in using this source, extremely so in case ofextraordinary claims on controversial subjects orbiographies of living people. When in doubt, try to find better sources instead; useinline attribution if you must use Xinhua. | 1 2 |
| Yahoo! News WP:YAHOONEWS 📌 | | 12[bu] | 2024 | Yahoo! News runs both original reporting and syndicated feeds of other sources. Editors have treated the original reporting as an ordinaryWP:NEWSORG, and thus presumed generally reliable. Take care with syndicated content, which varies from highly reliable sources to very unreliable sources. Syndicated content should be evaluated as you would evaluate the original source. Syndicated content will have the original source's name and/or logo at the top. | 1 |
| YouTube WP:RSPYT 📌 | | 2020 +35[bv] | 2024 | Most videos on YouTube are anonymous,self-published, and unverifiable, and should not be used as a reference. Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability. However, many YouTube videos from unofficial accounts are copyright violations and should not be linked from Wikipedia, according toWP:COPYLINK. See alsoWP:YOUTUBE andWP:VIDEOLINK. For illustrative, non-referential use, seec:Commons:YouTube files andWikipedia:Image use policy. | 1 |
| ZDNet (pre-October 2020) | | 2024 | 2024 | ZDNet is considered generally reliable for technology-related articles prior to its acquisition byRed Ventures in October 2020. | 1 |
| ZDNet (October 2020–present) | | 2024 | 2024 | ZDNet was acquired by digital marketing company Red Ventures in October 2020. There is consensus that ZDNet, along with other online properties of Red Ventures, is generally unreliable. Editors express concern that Red Ventures, as a matter of policy, uses AI-authored content on its properties in a non-transparent and unreliable manner. | 1 |
| Zero Hedge(ZeroHedge, ZH) WP:ZEROHEDGE 📌 | | 2020 | 2020 | Zero Hedge was deprecated in the 2020 RfC due to its propagation ofconspiracy theories. It is aself-published blog that isbiased or opinionated. | 1 |
| ZoomInfo | | 2020 | 2020 | Due to persistent abuse, ZoomInfo is currently on theWikipedia spam blacklist, and links must bewhitelisted before they can be used. | 1 |
Large language models (LLMs), such asChatGPT, are unreliable. While LLMs are trained on a vast amount of data and generate responses based on that, they can often provideinaccurate or fictitious information. The essayWikipedia:Large language models recommends against using LLMs to generate references. SeeWikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 408 § ChatGPT.
Paid news and undisclosed advertorials are apervasive and deeply integrated practice within many Indian commercial news organizations (print, television, and web). They often disguisesponsored content and paidpress release–based write-ups as regular news with inadequate or no disclosure. This is especially the case in reviews, articles about celebrities, and profiles of people, companies and entities of borderlinenotability. Coverage related to the above-mentioned entities requires extra vigilance given the diverse systemicapproaches to paid news. 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.
Examples of sponsored content include supplements published byThe Times of India; theSpecial section of theDaily Pioneer; theBrand Wire section ofABP Live; thePress Release News or theDigpu News Network sections ofFirstpost; theBusiness Spotlight section ofOutlook; theBrand Post section ofHindustan Times;Impact feature section ofIndia Today; theBrand Connect section ofForbes India; certain publishers may provide disclosures through terms such as "brand content" although advertorial content may not be restricted to such sections for many and may not contain any disclosures. If in doubt about any source, consult thereliable sources noticeboard.
Concerns have been repeatedly raised by editors regarding the quality of reporting byNigerian news organisations, even that by historically reputable newspapers. Similar concerns have been reflected by news coverage of the Nigerian media.[30] Concern has been raised in particular about undisclosed or unclearly disclosed promotional articles. Nigerian journalists are known to give news coverage to individuals and organisations in exchange for payment, a long-standing practice calledbrown envelope journalism.[31] Consequently, some editors suggest that Nigerian newspaper coverage should be considered with caution when assessing notability, particularly for biographies.
The followingself-publishedpeerage websites have been deprecated in requests for comment:
See§ Peerage websites for the corresponding entry.
A limited number of sites not already covered in the entries above are identified by credible sources (e.g. the EU's anti-disinformationEast 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. SeeWikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 281 § RfC: Deprecation of fake news / disinformation sites.
Reputable student media outlets, such asThe Harvard Crimson, are considered generally reliable sources for news on their school and local community.[32][33][34] They can sometimes be considered reliable on other topics, although professional sources are typically preferred when available.[33] 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.[35]
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.Tabloid journalism should not be confused withtabloid (newspaper format). Many publications that are not tabloid journalism use the tabloid format (and many that are do not).
