Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources

Jump to navigation Jump to search

The reliability of a source greatly affects what information it can be used to support, or whether it should be used at all.

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

Click here to check the list of sources.

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

Reliability is an inquiry that takes place pursuant to the verifiability policy and the reliable sources guideline. Note that verifiability is only one of Wikipedia's core content policies, which also include neutral point of view and no original research. These policies work together to determine whether information from reliable sources should be included or excluded.

How to use this list[edit]

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

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

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

What if my source isn't here?[edit]

Don't panic. If your source isn't listed here, the only thing it really means is that it hasn't been the subject of repeated community discussion. That may be because the source you want to use is a stellar source, and we simply never needed to talk about it because it was so obvious.[a] It could mean that the source covers a niche topic, or that it simply fell through the cracks. If you're concerned about any source in particular, you should start a discussion about it at the reliable sources noticeboard (RSN), after checking the "Search the noticeboard archives" there first. That is, after all, how the entries on this list got here to begin with.

A source's absence from the list does not imply that it is any more or less reliable than the sources that are present.

How to improve this list[edit]

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

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

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

Inclusion criteria[edit]

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

Instructions[edit]

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

Sources[edit]

Perennial sources
Source Status
(legend)
Discussions Uses
List Last Summary
112 Ukraine
Generally unreliable
Request for comment 2019 Spam blacklist request 2020 Request for comment 2020

+3[b]

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. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
Ad Fontes Media
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 4 2020 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 a self-published source and have questioned its methodology. Some editors consider their ratings usable if they have been given weight by a third party source. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Advameg (City-Data)
Blacklisted
Generally unreliable
Request for comment 2019 Spam blacklist request 2019 Request for comment 2019

+14[c]

2019 Advameg operates content farms, including City-Data, that use scraped or improperly licensed content. These sites frequently republish content from Gale's encyclopedias; many editors can obtain access to Gale through The Wikipedia Library free of charge. Advameg's sites are on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. WP:COPYLINK prohibits linking to copyright violations. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links +43
Agence France-Presse (AFP)
Generally reliable
1 2 2020 Agence France-Presse is a news 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Al Jazeera (Al Jazeera English, Aljazeera.com)
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2019 Al Jazeera is considered a generally reliable news organization. Editors perceive Al Jazeera English (and Aljazeera.com) to be more reliable than Al Jazeera's Arabic-language news reporting. Some editors say that Al Jazeera, particularly its Arabic-language media, is a partisan source with respect to the Arab–Israeli conflict. Al Jazeera's news blogs should be handled with the corresponding policy. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
AlterNet
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 4 5 2019 There is consensus that AlterNet is generally unreliable. Editors consider AlterNet a partisan source, and its statements should be attributed. AlterNet's syndicated content should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher, and the citation should preferably point to the original publisher. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Anti-Defamation League (ADL)
Generally reliable
Request for comment 2020

1 2 3 4 5

2020 There is consensus that 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. Some editors consider the ADL a biased source for Israel/Palestine related topics and should be used with caution, if at all. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Amazon
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 4 5 6 2020 User reviews on Amazon are anonymous, self-published, and unverifiable, and should not be used at all. Amazon is a reliable source for basic information about a work (such as release date, ISBN, etc.), although it is unnecessary to cite Amazon when the work itself may serve as a source for that information (e.g., authors' names and ISBNs). Future release dates may be unreliable.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
3 HTTPS links HTTP links
4 HTTPS links HTTP links
5 HTTPS links HTTP links
6 HTTPS links HTTP links
7 HTTPS links HTTP links
8 HTTPS links HTTP links
9 HTTPS links HTTP links
10 HTTPS links HTTP links
11 HTTPS links HTTP links
12 HTTPS links HTTP links
13 HTTPS links HTTP links
14 HTTPS links HTTP links
15 HTTPS links HTTP links
16 HTTPS links HTTP links
The American Conservative (TAC)
No consensus
Request for comment 2019 Request for comment 2020

1

2020 There is consensus that The American Conservative is a usable source for attributed opinions. As TAC is published by the American Ideas Institute, an advocacy organization, TAC is considered biased or opinionated. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
An Phoblacht
Generally unreliable
Request for comment 2020

1

2020 There is consensus that An Phoblacht is generally unreliable for news reporting, as it is a publication of Sinn Féin. Under the conditions of WP:ABOUTSELF, An Phoblacht is usable for attributed statements from Sinn Féin and some editors believe that the publication may also be used for attributed statements from the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA). 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Anadolu Agency (general topics) (AA)
No consensus
Request for comment 2019 2019 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 its state-run status. It is not generally reliable for topics that are controversial or related to international politics. See also: Anadolu Agency (controversial topics, international politics). 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
Anadolu Agency (controversial topics, international politics) (AA)
Generally unreliable
Request for comment 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
Ancestry.com
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 4 5 2020 Ancestry.com is a genealogy site that hosts a database of primary source documents including marriage and census records. Some of these sources may be usable under WP:BLPPRIMARY, but secondary sources, where available, are usually preferred. Ancestry.com also hosts user-generated content, which is unreliable. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Answers.com (WikiAnswers)
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 4 2010 Answers.com (previously known as WikiAnswers) is a Q&A site that incorporates user-generated content. In the past, Answers.com republished excerpts and summaries of tertiary sources, including D&B Hoovers, Gale, and HighBeam Research. Citations of republished content on Answers.com should point to the original source, with a note that the source was accessed "via Answers.com". Answers.com also previously served as a Wikipedia mirror; using republished Wikipedia content is considered circular sourcing. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Apple Daily
No consensus
Request for comment 2020 2020 The consensus is that Apple Daily is 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/or Apple Daily is the only source for a contested claim. There is concern that historically, it was not necessarily as reliable as it is today. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Arab News
No consensus
Request for comment 2020

1 2 3

2020 There is consensus that Arab News is a usable source for topics unrelated to the Saudi Arabian government. As Arab News is closely associated with the Saudi Arabian government and is published in a country with low press freedom, editors consider Arab News biased and non-independent for Saudi Arabian politics, and recommend attribution for its coverage in this area. Some editors consider Arab News unreliable for matters related to the Saudi Arabian government. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Ars Technica
Generally reliable
1 2 Discussions regarding this source are stale, and consensus may have changed.
2012
Ars Technica is considered generally reliable for science- and technology-related articles. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
arXiv
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 4

A B

Discussions regarding this source are stale, and consensus may have changed.
2015
arXiv is a preprint (and sometimes postprint) repository containing papers that have undergone moderation, but not necessarily peer review. There is consensus that arXiv is a self-published source, and is generally unreliable with the exception of papers authored by established subject-matter experts. Verify whether a paper on arXiv is also published in a peer-reviewed academic journal; in these cases, cite the more reliable journal and provide an open access link to the paper (which may be hosted on arXiv). 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
AskMen
No consensus
1 2 3 4 5 6 2020 There is no consensus on the reliability of AskMen. See also: IGN. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Associated Press (AP)
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 5 6 2018 The Associated Press is a news agency. There is consensus that the Associated Press is generally reliable. Syndicated reports from the Associated Press that are published in other sources are also considered generally reliable. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Atlantic (The Atlantic Monthly)
Generally reliable
1 2 3 2019 The Atlantic is considered generally reliable. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Australian
Generally reliable
1 2 2020 The Australian is considered generally reliable. Some editors consider The Australian to be a partisan source. Opinion pieces are covered by WP:RSOPINION and WP:NEWSBLOG. Several editors expressed concern regarding their coverage of Climate Change related topics. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
The A.V. Club
Generally reliable
1 2 3

A

Discussions regarding this source are stale, and consensus may have changed.
2014
The A.V. Club is considered generally reliable for film, music and TV reviews. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Axios
Generally reliable
1 2 2020 There is consensus that Axios is generally reliable. Some editors consider Axios to be a biased or opinionated source. Statements of opinion should be attributed and evaluated for due weight. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Baidu Baike
Deprecated
Request for comment 2020

1 2 3 4

2020 Baidu Baike was deprecated in the 2020 RfC as it is similar to an open wiki, which is a type of self-published source. Although edits are reviewed by Baidu administrators before they are published, most editors believe the editorial standards of Baidu Baike to be very low, and do not see any evidence of fact-checking. The Baidu 10 Mythical Creatures kuso originated from Baidu Baike. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
Ballotpedia
No consensus
1 2 3 2016 There is no consensus on the reliability of Ballotpedia. The site has an editorial team and accepts error corrections, but some editors do not express strong confidence in the site's editorial process. Discussions indicate that Ballotpedia used to be an open wiki, but stopped accepting user-generated content at some point. Currently, the site claims: "Ballotpedia's articles are 100 percent written by our professional staff of more than 50 writers and researchers."[1] 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation)
Generally reliable
16[d] 2020 BBC is considered generally reliable. This includes BBC News, BBC documentaries, and the BBC History site (on BBC Online). However, this excludes BBC projects that incorporate user-generated content (such as h2g2 and the BBC Domesday Project) and BBC publications with reduced editorial oversight (such as Collective). Statements of opinion should conform to the corresponding guideline. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
Bellingcat
Generally reliable
Request for comment 2019

1 2 3 4

2019 There is consensus that Bellingcat is generally reliable for news and should preferably be used with attribution. Some editors consider Bellingcat a biased source, as it receives funding from the National Endowment for Democracy. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Bild
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 2020 Bild is a tabloid that has been unfavourably compared to The Sun. A few editors consider the source usable in some cases. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Biography.com
No consensus
1 2 3 4 2018 There is no consensus on the reliability of Biography.com. Some editors consider the source reliable because of its backing from A&E Networks and references to the website in news media. Others point to discrepancies between information on Biography.com and on more established sources, and an unclear fact-checking process. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Blaze Media (BlazeTV, Conservative Review, CRTV, TheBlaze)
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 2018 Blaze Media (including TheBlaze) is considered generally unreliable for facts. In some cases, it may be usable for attributed opinions. In 2018, TheBlaze merged with Conservative Review (CRTV) to form Blaze Media.[2] 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
Blogger (blogspot.com)
Generally unreliable
21[e] 2020 Blogger is a blog hosting service that owns the blogspot.com domain. As a self-published source, it is considered generally unreliable and should be avoided unless the author is a subject-matter expert or the blog is used for uncontroversial self-descriptions. Blogger blogs published by a media organization should be evaluated by the reliability of the organization. Newspaper blogs hosted using Blogger should be handled with WP:NEWSBLOG. Blogger should never be used for third-party claims related to living persons; this includes interviews, as even those cannot be authenticated. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Bloomberg (Bloomberg News, Bloomberg Businessweek)
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 2019 Bloomberg publications, including Bloomberg News and Bloomberg Businessweek, are considered generally reliable for news and business topics. See also: Bloomberg profiles. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
Bloomberg profiles
No consensus
1 2 2018 Bloomberg company and executive profiles are generally considered to be based on company press releases and should only be used as a source for uncontroversial information. There is consensus that these profiles should not be used to establish notability. Some editors consider these profiles to be akin to self-published sources. See also: Bloomberg. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Boing Boing
No consensus
1 2 3 2019 There is no consensus on the reliability of Boing Boing. Although Boing Boing is a group blog, some of its articles are written by subject-matter experts such as Cory Doctorow, who is considered generally reliable for copyright law. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Breitbart News
Blacklisted
Deprecated
Request for comment 2018 Spam blacklist request 2018

+15[f]

2020 Due to persistent abuse, Breitbart News is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. The site has published a number of falsehoods, conspiracy theories, and intentionally misleading stories. The 2018 RfC showed a very clear consensus that Breitbart News should be deprecated in the same way as the Daily Mail. This does not mean Breitbart News can no longer be used, but it should not be used, ever, as a reference for facts, due to its unreliability. It can still be used as a primary source when attributing opinions, viewpoints, and commentary. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Burke's Peerage
Generally reliable
Request for comment 2020

1

2020 Burke's Peerage is considered generally reliable for genealogy. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Business Insider (Insider, Markets Insider, Tech Insider)
No consensus
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2020 There is no consensus on the reliability of Business Insider. The site's syndicated content, which may not be clearly marked, should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
3 HTTPS links HTTP links
Bustle
No consensus
Request for comment 2019 2019 There is consensus that the reliability of Bustle is unclear and that its reliability should be decided on an instance by instance basis. Editors noted that it has an editorial policy and that it will issue retractions. Editors also noted previous issues it had around reliability and that its content is written by freelance writers – though there is no consensus on whether this model affects their reliability. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
BuzzFeed
No consensus
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2018 Editors find the quality of BuzzFeed articles to be highly inconsistent. A 2014 study from the Pew Research Center found BuzzFeed to be the least trusted news source in America.[3] BuzzFeed may use A/B testing for new articles, which may cause article content to change.[4] BuzzFeed operates a separate news division, BuzzFeed News, which has higher editorial standards and is now hosted on a different website. See also: BuzzFeed News. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
BuzzFeed News
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2019 There is consensus that BuzzFeed News is generally reliable. BuzzFeed News now operates separately from BuzzFeed, and most news content originally hosted on BuzzFeed was moved to the BuzzFeed News website in 2018.[5] In light of the staff layoffs at BuzzFeed in January 2019, some editors recommend exercising more caution for BuzzFeed News articles published after this date. The site's opinion pieces should be handled with WP:RSOPINION. See also: BuzzFeed. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Canary
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 2020 Most editors criticize the accuracy of The Canary, and consider it generally unreliable. Editors agree that The Canary is biased or opinionated. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Cato Institute
No consensus
1 2 Discussions regarding this source are stale, and consensus may have changed.
2015
The Cato Institute is considered generally reliable for its opinion. Some editors consider the Cato Institute an authoritative source on libertarianism in the United States. There is no consensus on whether it is generally reliable on other topics. Most editors consider the Cato Institute biased or opinionated, so its uses should be attributed. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
CelebrityNetWorth
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2018 There is consensus that CelebrityNetWorth is generally unreliable. CelebrityNetWorth does not disclose its methodology, and its accuracy has been criticized by The New York Times.[6] 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR)
No consensus
Request for comment 2020 2020 The Center for Economic and Policy Research is an economic policy think tank. Though its articles are regularly written by subject-matter experts in economics and are frequently cited by reliable sources, most editors consider the CEPR biased or opinionated, so its uses should be attributed. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG, Global Research, globalresearch.ca)
Blacklisted
Generally unreliable
Spam blacklist request 2019

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2019 Due to persistent abuse, Global Research is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. The Centre for Research on Globalization is the organization that operates the Global Research website (globalresearch.ca, not to be confused with GlobalSecurity.org). The CRG is considered generally unreliable due to its propagation of conspiracy theories and lack of editorial oversight. It is biased or opinionated, and its content is likely to constitute undue weight. As it often covers fringe material, parity of sources should be considered. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
3 HTTPS links HTTP links
CESNUR (Center for Studies on New Religions, Centro Studi sulle Nuove Religioni)
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 4 2019 CESNUR is an apologia site for new religious movements, and thus is inherently unreliable in its core area due to conflicts of interest. There is also consensus that its content is unreliable on its own merits. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
China Global Television Network (CGTN, CCTV International)
Deprecated
Request for comment 2020

1 2

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's airing of forced confessions. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Christian Science Monitor (CSM, CS Monitor)
Generally reliable
20[g] 2016 The Christian Science Monitor is considered generally reliable for news. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
CliffsNotes
No consensus
1 2 2018 CliffsNotes is a study guide. Editors consider CliffsNotes usable for superficial analyses of literature, and recommend supplementing CliffsNotes citations with additional sources. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Climate Feedback
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 2020 Climate Feedback is a fact-checking website that is considered generally reliable for topics related to climate change. It discloses its methodologies, is certified by the International Fact-Checking Network, and has been endorsed by other reliable sources. Most editors do not consider Climate Feedback a self-published source due to its high reviewer requirements. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
CNET (Computer Network)
Generally reliable
16[h] Discussions regarding this source are stale, and consensus may have changed.
2015
CNET is considered generally reliable for technology-related articles. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
CNN (Cable News Network)
Generally reliable
Request for comment 2019

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Discussion in progress
2020
There is consensus that news broadcast or published by CNN is generally reliable. However, iReport consists solely of user-generated content, and talk show content should be treated as opinion pieces. Some editors consider CNN biased, though not to the extent that it affects reliability. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
CoinDesk
Generally unreliable
Request for comment 2018 Request for comment 2019

1 2 3

2019 There is consensus that CoinDesk should not be used to establish notability for article topics, and that it should be avoided in favor of more mainstream sources. Check CoinDesk articles for conflict of interest disclosures, and verify whether their parent company (Digital Currency Group) has an ownership stake in a company covered by CoinDesk.[7] 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Common Sense Media (CSM)
Generally reliable
1 2 3 2020 There is consensus that Common Sense Media is generally reliable for entertainment reviews. As an advocacy organization, Common Sense Media is biased or opinionated, and its statements should generally be attributed. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Conversation
Generally reliable
1 2 3 2019 The Conversation publishes articles from academics who are subject-matter experts. It is generally reliable for subjects in the authors' areas of expertise. Opinions published in The Conversation should be handled with WP:RSOPINION. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Cosmopolitan
No consensus
1 2 3 4 5 6 2019 There is no consensus on the reliability of Cosmopolitan. It is generally regarded as a situational source, which means context is important. The treatment of Cosmopolitan as a source should be decided on a case-by-case basis, depending on the article and the information to be verified. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
CounterPunch
No consensus
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2020 There is no consensus regarding the reliability of CounterPunch. As a biased or opinionated source, its statements should be attributed. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Cracked.com
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 4 5 Discussions regarding this source are stale, and consensus may have changed.
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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Crunchbase
Deprecated
Request for comment 2019

1 2

2019 In the 2019 RfC, there was consensus to deprecate Crunchbase, but also to continue allowing external links to the website. A significant proportion of Crunchbase's data is user-generated content. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Daily Beast
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 2020 The Daily Beast is considered generally reliable for news. Most editors consider The Daily Beast a biased or opinionated source. Some editors advise caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Daily Caller
Deprecated
Request for comment 2019

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

2019 The Daily Caller was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the site publishes false or fabricated information. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Daily Dot
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

A

2018 The Daily Dot is considered generally reliable for Internet culture. Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Daily Express
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 4 5 6 2020 The Daily Express is a tabloid with a number of similarities to the Daily Mail. It is considered generally unreliable. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Daily Kos
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 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 an activism blog that publishes user-generated content with a progressive point of view, many editors consider Daily Kos to inappropriately blur news reporting and opinion. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Daily Mail (MailOnline)

WP:RSPDM 📌
Deprecated
Request for comment 2017 Request for comment 2019 Request for comment 2020

+46[i]

2020 The Daily Mail was deprecated in the 2017 RfC, and the decision was reaffirmed in the 2019 RfC. There is consensus that the Daily Mail (including its online version, MailOnline) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles. The Daily Mail may be used in rare cases in an about-self fashion. Some editors regard the Daily Mail as reliable historically, so old articles may be used in a historical context. (Note that dailymail.co.uk is not trustworthy as a source of past content that was printed in the Daily Mail.) The restriction is often incorrectly interpreted as a "ban" on the Daily Mail. The UK Daily Mail is not to be confused with other publications named Daily Mail. The dailymail.com domain was previously used by the unaffiliated Charleston Daily Mail, and reference links are still present.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
3 HTTPS links HTTP links
4 HTTPS links HTTP links
5 HTTPS links HTTP links
6 HTTPS links HTTP links
7 HTTPS links HTTP links
8 HTTPS links HTTP links
Daily Mirror (Mirror)
No consensus
1 2 3 4 5 2020 The Daily Mirror is a tabloid newspaper that publishes tabloid journalism. There is no consensus on whether its reliability is comparable to other British tabloids, such as the Daily Mail or The Sun. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Daily Star (UK)
Deprecated
Request for comment 2020

1 2 3 4

2020 The Daily Star was deprecated in the 2020 RfC due to its reputation of publishing false or fabricated information 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Daily Telegraph (UK) (The Telegraph)
Generally reliable
16[j] 2018 There is consensus that The Daily Telegraph (also known as The Telegraph) is generally reliable. Some editors believe that The Daily Telegraph is biased or opinionated for politics. Unrelated to The Daily Telegraph (Sydney). 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Daily Wire
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 2020 There is a strong consensus that The 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.[8][9] 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Deadline Hollywood
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 5 6 2019 Deadline Hollywood is considered generally reliable for entertainment-related articles. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
Debrett's
Generally reliable
Request for comment 2020

1

2020 There is consensus that Debrett's is reliable for genealogical information. However, their defunct "People of Today" section is considered similar to Who's Who (UK) as the details were solicited from the subjects. Editors have also raised concerns that this section included paid coverage. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Democracy Now!
No consensus
1 2 3 4 5 Discussions regarding this source are stale, and consensus may have changed.
2013
There is no consensus on the reliability of Democracy Now!. Most editors consider Democracy Now! a partisan source whose statements should be attributed. Syndicated content published by Democracy Now! should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Deseret News
Generally reliable
1 2 3 2016 The Deseret News is considered generally reliable for local news. It is owned by a subsidiary of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and there is no consensus on whether the Deseret News is independent of the LDS Church. The publication's statements on topics regarding the LDS Church should be attributed. The Deseret News includes a supplement, the Church News, which is considered a primary source as an official publication of the LDS Church. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Digital Spy
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 5

A

Discussions regarding this source are stale, and consensus may have changed.
2012
There is consensus that Digital Spy is generally reliable for entertainment and popular culture. Consider whether the information from this source constitutes due or undue weight. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Diplomat
Generally reliable
1 2 2020 There is consensus that The Diplomat is generally reliable. Opinion pieces should be evaluated by WP:RSOPINION and WP:NEWSBLOG. Some editors have expressed concern on their reliability for North Korea related topics. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Discogs
Generally unreliable
Request for comment 2019

1 2 3 4 5

2019 The content on Discogs is user-generated, and is therefore generally unreliable. There was consensus against deprecating Discogs in a 2019 RfC, as editors noted that external links to the site may be appropriate. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Dotdash (About.com, The Balance, Lifewire, The Spruce, ThoughtCo, TripSavvy, Verywell)
No consensus
Spam blacklist request 2018 Spam blacklist request 2020

+16[k]

2020 Dotdash (formerly known as About.com) operates a network of websites. Editors find the quality of articles published by About.com to be inconsistent. Some editors recommend treating About.com articles as self-published sources, and only using articles published by established experts. About.com also previously served as a Wikipedia mirror; using republished Wikipedia content is considered circular sourcing. In 2017, the About.com website became defunct and some of its content was moved to Dotdash's current website brands.[10][11] Due to persistent abuse, verywellfamily.com, verywellhealth.com, and verywellmind.com are on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. See also: Investopedia.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
3 HTTPS links HTTP links
4 HTTPS links HTTP links
5 HTTPS links HTTP links
6 HTTPS links HTTP links
7 HTTPS links HTTP links
8 HTTPS links HTTP links
9 HTTPS links HTTP links
10 HTTPS links HTTP links
E! (E! News, E! Online, Entertainment Television)
No consensus
1 2 3

A

2019 There is no consensus on the reliability of the E! television network, including its website E! Online. It is generally regarded as usable for celebrity news. Consider whether the information from this source constitutes due or undue weight, especially when the subject is a living person. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Economist
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 2018 Most editors consider The Economist generally reliable. The Economist publishes magazine blogs and opinion pieces, which should be handled with the respective guidelines. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Electronic Intifada (EI)
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2018 There is consensus that The Electronic Intifada is generally unreliable with respect to its reputation for accuracy, fact-checking, and error-correction. Almost all editors consider The Electronic Intifada a biased and opinionated source, so their statements should be attributed. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Encyclopædia Britannica (Encyclopædia Britannica Online)
No consensus
12[l] 2020 The Encyclopædia Britannica (including its online edition, Encyclopædia Britannica Online) is a tertiary source with a strong reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Most editors prefer reliable secondary sources over the Encyclopædia Britannica when available. From 2009 to 2010, the Encyclopædia 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Encyclopædia Iranica
Generally reliable
1 2 3 2020 The Encyclopædia Iranica is considered generally reliable for Iran-related topics. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Engadget
Generally reliable
1

A

Discussions regarding this source are stale, and consensus may have changed.
2012
Engadget is considered generally reliable for technology-related articles. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Entertainment Weekly (EW)
Generally reliable
1 2 3

A

2018 Entertainment Weekly is considered generally reliable for entertainment-related articles. There is no consensus on whether it is reliable for other topics. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Entrepreneur (Entrepreneur India)
No consensus
Request for comment 2020 2020 There is no consensus for the reliability of Entrepreneur Magazine, although there is a consensus that "contributor" pieces in the publication should be treated as self-published, similar to Forbes contributors. Editors did not provide much evidence of fabrication in their articles, but were concerned that its coverage tends toward churnalism and may include improperly disclosed paid pieces. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Epoch Times
Deprecated
Request for comment 2019

1 2 3 4 5 6

2020 The Epoch Times was deprecated in the 2019 RfC. Most editors classify The Epoch Times as an advocacy group for the Falun Gong, and consider the publication a biased or opinionated source that frequently publishes conspiracy theories. As is the case with Breitbart News and Occupy Democrats, this does not mean that The Epoch Times can no longer be used, just that it can never again be used as a reference for facts. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
Evening Standard (London Evening Standard)
No consensus
1 2 3 4 5 6 2018 There is no consensus on the reliability of the Evening Standard. Despite being a free newspaper, it is generally considered more reliable than most British tabloids and middle-market newspapers. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Examiner.com
Blacklisted
Generally unreliable
Spam blacklist request 2009

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2014 Due to persistent abuse, Examiner.com is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. Examiner.com is considered a self-published source, as it has minimal editorial oversight. Most editors believe the site has a poor reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Prior to 2004, the examiner.com domain was used by The San Francisco Examiner, which has moved to a different domain. Examiner.com was shut down in 2016. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Facebook
Generally unreliable
Request for comment 2020

1 2 3

2020 Facebook is considered generally unreliable because it is a self-published source with no editorial oversight. In the 2020 RfC, there was consensus to add an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite Facebook as a source, and no consensus on whether Facebook citations should be automatically reverted with XLinkBot. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR)
No consensus
Request for comment 2010

1 2 3 4 5

Discussions regarding this source are stale, and consensus may have changed.
2014
There is no consensus on the reliability of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. However, there is strong consensus that publications from FAIR should not be used to support exceptional claims regarding living persons. Most editors consider FAIR a biased or opinionated source whose statements should be attributed and generally treated as opinions. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
FamilySearch
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 4 5 6 2018 FamilySearch operates a genealogy site that incorporates a large amount of user-generated content. Editors see no evidence that FamilySearch performs fact-checking, and believe that the site has a questionable reputation for accuracy. FamilySearch also hosts primary source documents, such as birth certificates, which may be usable in limited situations. When using primary source documents from FamilySearch, follow WP:BLPPRIMARY and avoid interpreting them with original research. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Famous Birthdays
Blacklisted
Generally unreliable
Spam blacklist request 2019

1 2 3 4 5

2019 Due to persistent abuse, Famous Birthdays is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted 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 regarding living persons. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Fandom (Wikia, Wikicities)
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 4 5 6

A

2019 Fandom (formerly Wikia and Wikicities) is considered generally unreliable because open wikis are self-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 {{Wikia content}} template to provide the necessary attribution in these cases, and ensure the article meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines after copying. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
3 HTTPS links HTTP links
Financial Times
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2018 The Financial Times is considered generally reliable. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Find a Grave
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 4 5 Discussion in progress
2020
The content on Find a Grave is user-generated,[12] and is therefore considered generally unreliable. Links to Find a Grave may sometimes be included in the external links section of articles, when the site offers valuable additional content, such as images not permitted for use on Wikipedia. Take care that the Find a Grave page does not itself contain prohibited content, such as copyright violations. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Findmypast
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 4 5 2019 Findmypast is a genealogy site that hosts transcribed primary source documents, which is covered under WP:BLPPRIMARY. The site's birth and death certificate records include the event's date of registration, not the date of the event itself. Editors caution against interpreting the documents with original research and note that the transcription process may introduce errors. Findmypast also hosts user-generated family trees, which are unreliable. The Wikipedia Library previously offered access to Findmypast. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Forbes
WP:FORBES 📌
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 5 6 2020 Forbes and Forbes.com include articles written by their staff, which are written with editorial oversight, and are generally reliable. Forbes also publishes various "top" lists which can be referenced in articles. See also: Forbes.com contributors. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Forbes.com contributors
Generally unreliable
12[m] 2020 Most content on Forbes.com is written by contributors with minimal editorial oversight, and is generally unreliable. Editors show consensus for treating Forbes.com contributor articles as self-published sources, unless the article was written by a subject-matter expert. Forbes.com contributor articles should never be used for third-party claims about living persons. Articles that have also been published in the print edition of Forbes are excluded, and are considered generally reliable. Check the byline to determine whether an article is written by "Forbes Staff" or a "Contributor", and check underneath the byline to see whether it was published in a print issue of Forbes. Previously, Forbes.com contributor articles could have been identified by their URL beginning in "forbes.com/sites"; the URL no longer distinguishes them, as Forbes staff articles have also been moved under "/sites". See also: Forbes. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Fox News[n] (news excluding politics and science)
Generally reliable
Request for comment 2010 Request for comment 2020

+9[o]

2020 There is consensus that Fox News is generally reliable for news coverage on topics other than politics and science. See also: Fox News (politics and science), Fox News (talk shows). 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
Fox News[n] (politics and science)
No consensus
Request for comment 2010 Request for comment 2020

+18[p]

2020 There is no consensus on the reliability of Fox News's coverage of politics and science. Use Fox News with caution to verify contentious claims. Editors perceive Fox News to be biased or opinionated for politics; use in-text attribution for opinions. See also: Fox News (news excluding politics and science), Fox News (talk shows). 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Fox News[n] (talk shows)
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2020 Fox News talk shows, including Hannity, Tucker Carlson Tonight, The Ingraham Angle, and Fox & Friends, should not be used for statements of fact but can sometimes be used for attributed opinions. See also: Fox News (news excluding politics and science), Fox News (politics and science). 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
FrontPage Magazine (FPM, FrontPageMag.com)
Deprecated
Request for comment 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

2020 In the 2020 RfC, there was unanimous consensus to deprecate FrontPage Magazine. Editors consider the publication generally unreliable, and believe that its opinions should be assigned little to no weight. The publication is considered biased or opinionated. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
Gamasutra
Generally reliable
1 2

A

2020 Gamasutra is considered generally reliable for subjects related to video games. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Gateway Pundit
Deprecated
Request for comment 2019

1

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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Gawker
Generally unreliable
Request for comment 2019

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2019 Gawker is an inactive gossip blog that frequently published articles on rumors and speculation without named authors. When Gawker is the only source for a piece of information, the information would likely constitute undue weight, especially when the subject is a living person. When another reliable source quotes information from Gawker, it is preferable to cite that source instead. In the 2019 RfC, there was no consensus on whether Gawker should be deprecated. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Geni.com
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 4 5 2019 Geni.com is a genealogy site that is considered generally unreliable because it is an open wiki, which is a type of self-published source. Primary source documents from Geni.com may be usable under WP:BLPPRIMARY to support reliable secondary sources, but avoid interpreting them with original research. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Genius (Rap Genius)
No consensus
1 2 2019 Song lyrics, annotations and descriptions on Genius are mostly user-generated content and are thus generally unreliable. There is no consensus on the reliability of articles, interviews and videos produced by Genius. Verified commentary from musicians fall under WP:BLPSELFPUB, and usage of such commentary should conform to that policy. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
Global Times (Huanqiu Shibao)
Deprecated
Request for comment 2020

1 2 3 4

2020 The Global Times is a tabloid owned by the Chinese 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. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
GlobalSecurity.org
No consensus
11[q] 2020 There is no consensus on the reliability of GlobalSecurity.org. It is not to be confused with globalresearch.ca. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Goodreads
Generally unreliable
1 2 2018 Goodreads is a social cataloging site comprising user-generated content. As a self-published source, Goodreads is considered generally unreliable. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Google Maps (Google Street View)
No consensus
1 2 3 4 5 2017 Google Maps and Google Street View may be useful for some purposes, including finding and verifying geographic coordinates and other basic information like street names. However, especially for objects like boundaries (of neighborhoods, allotments, etc.), where other reliable sources are available they should be treated preferentially to Google Maps and Google Street View. It can also be difficult or impossible to determine the veracity of past citations, since 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 considered original research. Note that due to restrictions on geographic data in China, OpenStreetMap coordinates for places in mainland China are almost always much more accurate than Google's – despite OpenStreetMap being user-generated – due to the severe distortion introduced by most commercial map providers. (References, in any case, are usually not required for geographic coordinates.) 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Grayzone
Deprecated
Request for comment 2020

1

2020 The Grayzone was deprecated in the 2020 RfC. There is consensus that The Grayzone publishes false or fabricated information. Some editors describe The Grayzone as Max Blumenthal's blog, and question the website's editorial oversight. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Green Papers
No consensus
Request for comment 2020

1
A

2020 There is no consensus on the reliability of The Green Papers. As a self-published source that publishes United States election results, some editors question the site's editorial oversight. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Guardian (TheGuardian.com, The Manchester Guardian, The Observer)
Generally reliable
15[r] 2019 There is consensus that The Guardian is generally reliable. The Guardian's op-eds should be handled with WP:RSOPINION. Some editors believe The Guardian is biased or opinionated for politics. See also: The Guardian blogs. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
3 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Guardian blogs
No consensus
10[s] 2020 Most editors say that The Guardian blogs should be treated as newspaper blogs or opinion pieces due to reduced editorial oversight. Check the bottom of the article for a "blogposts" tag to determine whether the page is a blog post or a non-blog article. See also: The Guardian. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
3 HTTPS links HTTP links
Guido Fawkes
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 4 2020 The Guido Fawkes website (order-order.com) is considered generally unreliable because it is a self-published blog. It may be used for uncontroversial descriptions of itself and its own content according to WP:ABOUTSELF, but not for claims related to living persons. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Guinness World Records
No consensus
1 2 3 4 5 2020 There is consensus that world records verified by Guinness World Records should not be used to establish notability. Editors have expressed concern that post 2008 records include paid coverage. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Haaretz (Ḥadashot Ha'aretz)
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2018 Haaretz is considered generally reliable. Some editors believe that Haaretz reports with a political slant, particularly with respect to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which makes it biased or opinionated. The publication's opinion pieces should be handled with the appropriate guideline. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
Hansard (UK Parliament transcripts, House of Commons, House of Lords)
No consensus
1 2 3 4 2019 As a transcript of parliament proceedings in the United Kingdom, Hansard is a primary source and its statements should be attributed to whoever made them. Hansard is considered generally reliable for UK parliamentary proceedings and UK government statements. It is not considered reliable as a secondary source as it merely contains the personal opinions of whoever is speaking in Parliament that day, and is subject to Parliamentary privilege. Hansard is not a word-for-word transcript and may omit repetitions and redundancies.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
3 HTTPS links HTTP links
4 HTTPS links HTTP links
5 HTTPS links HTTP links
6 HTTPS links HTTP links
Heat Street
Generally unreliable
1 2 2017 Although Heat Street was owned by Dow Jones & Company, a usually reputable publisher, many editors note that Heat Street does not clearly differentiate between its news articles and opinion. There is consensus that Heat Street is a partisan source. Some editors consider Heat Street's opinion pieces and news articles written by its staff to be usable with attribution, though due weight must be considered because Heat Street covers many political topics not as talked about in higher-profile sources. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Heavy.com
No consensus
1 2 2019 There is consensus that Heavy.com should not be relied upon for any serious or contentious statements, including dates of birth. When Heavy.com cites another source for their own article, it is preferable to read and cite the original source instead. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Hill
Generally reliable
10[t] 2019 The Hill is considered generally reliable for American politics. The publication's opinion pieces should be handled with the appropriate guideline. The publication's contributor pieces, labeled in their bylines, receive minimal editorial oversight and should be treated as equivalent to self-published sources. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Hindu
WP:HINDU 📌
Generally reliable
1 2 3 2020 There is consensus that The Hindu is generally reliable and should be treated as a newspaper of record. The publication's opinion pieces should be handled with the appropriate guideline. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
HispanTV
Deprecated
Request for comment 2019 2019 HispanTV was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed overwhelming consensus that the TV channel is generally unreliable and sometimes broadcasts outright fabrications. Editors listed multiple examples of HispanTV broadcasting conspiracy theories and Iranian propaganda. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
History (The History Channel)
Generally unreliable
1 2 2020 Most editors consider The History Channel generally unreliable due to its poor reputation for accuracy and its tendency to broadcast programs that promote conspiracy theories. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Hollywood Reporter (THR)
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 5 2018 There is consensus that The Hollywood Reporter is generally reliable for entertainment-related topics, including its articles and reviews on film, TV and music, as well as its box office figures. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Hope not Hate (Searchlight)
No consensus
Request for comment 2018

1 2 3 4 5

2019 Most commenters declined to make a general statement about publications from Hope not Hate. Reliability should be assessed on a case by case basis, while taking context into account. Because they are an advocacy group, they are a biased and opinionated source and their statements should be attributed. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
HuffPost (The Huffington Post)
WP:HUFFPO 📌

No consensus
Request for comment 2020

+18[u]

Discussion in progress
2020
There is no consensus on the reliability of HuffPost. As HuffPost is a newer publication, some editors prefer to use reliable sources with more established reputations. Some editors believe the site reports with a political slant, which makes it biased or opinionated. HuffPost's syndicated content should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher. See also: HuffPost contributors.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
3 HTTPS links HTTP links
4 HTTPS links HTTP links
5 HTTPS links HTTP links
6 HTTPS links HTTP links
7 HTTPS links HTTP links
8 HTTPS links HTTP links
9 HTTPS links HTTP links
10 HTTPS links HTTP links
11 HTTPS links HTTP links
12 HTTPS links HTTP links
13 HTTPS links HTTP links
14 HTTPS links HTTP links
15 HTTPS links HTTP links
16 HTTPS links HTTP links
HuffPost contributors
Generally unreliable
17[v] 2018 HuffPost includes content written by contributors with minimal editorial oversight. These contributors generally do not have a reputation for fact-checking, and most editors criticize the quality of their content. Editors show consensus for treating HuffPost contributor articles as self-published sources, unless the article was written by a subject-matter expert. In 2018, HuffPost discontinued its contributor platform, but old contributor articles are still online.[13] Check the byline to determine whether an article is written by a staff member or a "Contributor" (also referred to as an "Editorial Partner"). See also: HuffPost.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
3 HTTPS links HTTP links
4 HTTPS links HTTP links
5 HTTPS links HTTP links
6 HTTPS links HTTP links
7 HTTPS links HTTP links
8 HTTPS links HTTP links
9 HTTPS links HTTP links
10 HTTPS links HTTP links
11 HTTPS links HTTP links
12 HTTPS links HTTP links
13 HTTPS links HTTP links
14 HTTPS links HTTP links
15 HTTPS links HTTP links
16 HTTPS links HTTP links
Human Events
No consensus
1 2 3 2019 Editors consider Human Events biased or opinionated, and its statements should be attributed. In May 2019, a former editor-in-chief of Breitbart News became the editor-in-chief of Human Events; articles published after the leadership change are considered generally unreliable. There is no consensus on the reliability of Human Events's older content. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Idolator
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 5 2017 There is consensus that Idolator is generally reliable for popular music. Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
IGN (Imagine Games Network)
Generally reliable
12[w] 2017 There is consensus that IGN 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 constitutes due 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 with WP:RSBLOG. See also: AskMen. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
IMDb (Internet Movie Database)
Generally unreliable
Request for comment 2019

+32[x]

2020 The content on IMDb is user-generated, and the site is considered unreliable by a majority of editors. WP:Citing IMDb describes two exceptions, both of which do not require citations because the film itself is implied to be the primary source. 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 (see WP:ELP). 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Independent
Generally reliable
1 2 3 2019 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 an online newspaper; some editors advise caution for articles published after this date. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Independent Journal Review (IJR)
No consensus
1 2 3 2018 There is no consensus on the reliability of the Independent Journal Review. Posts from "community" members are considered self-published sources. The site's "news" section consists mostly of syndicated stories from Reuters, and citations of these stories should preferably point to Reuters. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Independent Media Center (Indymedia, IMC)
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 2020 The Independent Media Center is an open publishing network. Editors express low confidence in Indymedia's reputation for fact-checking, and consider Indymedia a self-published source.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
3 HTTPS links HTTP links
4 HTTPS links HTTP links
5 HTTPS links HTTP links
6 HTTPS links HTTP links
7 HTTPS links HTTP links
8 HTTPS links HTTP links
9 HTTPS links HTTP links
10 HTTPS links HTTP links
11 HTTPS links HTTP links
12 HTTPS links HTTP links
13 HTTPS links HTTP links
14 HTTPS links HTTP links
15 HTTPS links HTTP links
16 HTTPS links HTTP links
17 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Indian Express
Generally reliable
Request for comment 2020

1

2020 The Indian Express is considered generally reliable under the news organizations guideline. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
InfoWars (NewsWars)
Blacklisted
Deprecated
Spam blacklist request 2018 Request for comment 2018 Spam blacklist request 2018

1

2018 Due to persistent abuse, InfoWars is on both the Wikipedia spam blacklist and the Wikimedia global spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. InfoWars was deprecated in the 2018 RfC, which showed unanimous consensus that the site publishes fake news and conspiracy theories. The use of InfoWars as a reference should be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. InfoWars should not be used for determining notability, or used as a secondary source in articles.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
3 HTTPS links HTTP links
4 HTTPS links HTTP links
Inter Press Service (IPS)
Generally reliable
1 2 Discussions regarding this source are stale, and consensus may have changed.
2011
The Inter Press Service is a news agency. There is consensus that the Inter Press Service is generally reliable for news. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
3 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Intercept
Generally reliable
1 2 3 Discussion in progress
2020
There is consensus that The Intercept is generally reliable for news. Almost all editors consider The Intercept a biased source, so uses may need to be attributed. For science, editors prefer peer-reviewed journals over news sources like The Intercept. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
International Business Times (IBT, IBTimes)
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2019 There is consensus that the International Business Times is generally unreliable. Editors note that the publication's editorial practices have been criticized by other reliable sources, and point to the inconsistent quality of the site's articles. The site's syndicated content, which may not be clearly marked, should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
3 HTTPS links HTTP links
4 HTTPS links HTTP links
5 HTTPS links HTTP links
6 HTTPS links HTTP links
International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN)
WP:IFCN 📌
Generally reliable
Request for comment 2020 2020 The Poynter Institute's International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) reviews fact-checking organizations according to a code of principles. There is consensus that it is generally reliable for determining the reliability of fact-checking organizations. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Investopedia
No consensus
1 2 3 2018 Investopedia is owned by Dotdash (formerly known as About.com). There is no consensus on the reliability of Investopedia. It is a tertiary source. See also: Dotdash. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association)
Generally reliable
1 2 2018 JAMA is a peer-reviewed medical journal published by the American Medical Association. It is considered generally reliable. Opinion pieces from JAMA, including articles from The Jama Forum, are subject to WP:RSOPINION and might not qualify under WP:MEDRS. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Jewish Virtual Library (JVL)
Generally unreliable
Request for comment 2020

1 2 3 4 5 A

2020 The Jewish Virtual Library is a partisan source which sometimes cites 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 HTTPS links HTTP links
Jezebel
No consensus
1 2 2016 There is no consensus on the reliability of Jezebel. Most editors believe that Jezebel is biased or opinionated, and that its claims should be attributed. Jezebel should generally not be used for contentious claims, especially ones about living persons. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Jihad Watch
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 2020 There is consensus that the Jihad Watch is generally unreliable and should not be used as a source of facts. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Know Your Meme (KYM)
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 4 2020 Know Your Meme entries, including "confirmed" entries, are user-generated and generally unreliable. There is no consensus on the reliability of their video series. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Last.fm
Deprecated
Request for comment 2019

1

2019 Last.fm was deprecated in the 2019 RfC. The content on Last.fm is user-generated, and is considered generally unreliable. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Lenta.ru (12 March 2014–present)
Blacklisted
Deprecated
Request for comment 2019 Spam blacklist request 2020

1 2

2020 Due to persistent abuse, Lenta.ru is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links to articles published on or after 12 March 2014 must be whitelisted before they can be used. Lenta.ru was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the site frequently publishes conspiracy theories and Russian propaganda, owing to a mass dismissal of staff on 12 March 2014. The use of Lenta.ru articles published since 12 March 2014 as references should be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. Lenta.ru should not be used for determining notability, or used as a secondary source in articles. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
LifeSiteNews (Campaign Life Coalition)
Deprecated
Request for comment 2019

1 2 3 4

2019 LifeSiteNews was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the site publishes false or fabricated information. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
LinkedIn (LinkedIn Pulse)
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2020 LinkedIn is a social network. As a self-published source, it is considered generally unreliable and should be avoided unless the post is used for an uncontroversial self-description. Articles on LinkedIn Pulse written by LinkedIn users are also self-published. LinkedIn accounts should only be cited if they are verified accounts or if the user's identity is confirmed in some way. Posts that are not covered by reliable sources are likely to constitute undue weight. LinkedIn should never be used for third-party claims related to living persons. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
LiveJournal
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 4 2020 LiveJournal is a blog hosting service. As a self-published source, it is considered generally unreliable. LiveJournal can be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions and content from subject-matter experts, but not as a secondary source for living persons. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
LiveLeak
Blacklisted
Generally unreliable
Spam blacklist request 2019

1 2 3 4

2019 Due to persistent abuse, LiveLeak is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. LiveLeak is an online video platform that hosts user-generated content. Many of the videos on LiveLeak are copyright violations, and should not be linked to per WP:COPYLINK. The use of LiveLeak as a primary source is questionable in most cases, as the provenance of most of the videos is unclear. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Los Angeles Times
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 5 6 2016 Most editors consider the Los Angeles Times generally reliable. Refer to WP:NEWSBLOG for the newspaper's blog. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Lulu.com (Lulu Press)
Blacklisted
Generally unreliable
Spam blacklist request 2008

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

2019 Due to persistent abuse, Lulu.com is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. Lulu.com is a print-on-demand publisher, which is a type of self-published source. Books published through Lulu.com can be used if they are written by a subject-matter expert. Occasionally, a reputable publisher uses Lulu.com as a printer; in this case, cite the original publisher instead of Lulu.com. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Marquis Who's Who (Who's Who in America)
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 4 5 2017 Marquis Who's Who, including its publication Who's Who in America, is considered generally unreliable. As most of its content is provided by the person concerned, editors generally consider Marquis Who's Who comparable to a self-published source. There is a broad consensus that Marquis Who's Who should not be used to establish notability for article topics. See also: Who's Who (UK). 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Mary Sue
No consensus
1 2

A B

2016 There is no consensus on the reliability of The Mary Sue. It is generally regarded as usable for reviews and opinion, though not for its reblogged content. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC)
WP:MBFC 📌
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 2019 There is consensus that Media Bias/Fact Check is generally unreliable, as it is self-published. Editors have questioned the methodology of the site's ratings. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Media Matters for America (MMfA)
No consensus
Request for comment 2010 Request for comment 2019

+10[y]

2019 There is no consensus on the reliability of Media Matters for America. As a biased or opinionated source, their statements should be attributed. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Media Research Center (MRC, CNSNews.com, Cybercast News Service, MRCTV, NewsBusters)
Generally unreliable
Request for comment 2010 Request for comment 2019 Request for comment 2020

+6[z]

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. As biased or opinionated sources, their statements should be attributed.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
3 HTTPS links HTTP links
4 HTTPS links HTTP links
Mediaite
No consensus
1 2 3 2019 There is some consensus that Mediaite is only marginally reliable, and should be avoided where better sources are available. Editors consider the source to inappropriately blur news and opinion, and due weight should be considered if no other reliable sources support a given statement. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Medium
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 2020 Medium is a blog hosting service. As a self-published source, it is considered generally unreliable and should be avoided unless the author is a subject-matter expert or the blog is used for uncontroversial self-descriptions. Medium should never be used as a secondary source for living persons. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Metacritic (GameRankings)
Generally reliable
10[aa] 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 are self-published sources. Reviewers tracked by Metacritic are not automatically reliable for their reviews. On December 2019, video game aggregate site GameRankings shut down and merged with Metacritic.[14][15][16] 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
MetalSucks
No consensus
1 2

A

2018 MetalSucks is considered usable for its reviews and news articles. Avoid its overly satirical content and exercise caution when MetalSucks is the only source making a statement. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Metro (UK)
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2017 The reliability of Metro has been compared to that of the Daily Mail and other British tabloids. Articles published in the print newspaper (accessible via metro.news domain) are considered more reliable than articles published only on the metro.co.uk website. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI)
No consensus
Request for comment 2020

1 2 3

2020 There is no concensus on the reliability of MEMRI or the accuracy of their translations. Editors are polarised between those who consider it to be a reliable source and those who consider it unreliable. Some editors consider MEMRI selective in what it chooses to translate. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
MintPress News
Deprecated
Request for comment 2019 2019 MintPress News was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the site publishes false or fabricated information. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Le Monde diplomatique
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 2018 There is concensus that Le Monde diplomatique is generally reliable. Editors consider Le Monde diplomatique to be a biased and opinionated source. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
Mondoweiss
No consensus
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2019 Mondoweiss is a news website operated by the Center for Economic Research and Social Change (CERSC), an advocacy organization. There is no consensus on the reliability of Mondoweiss. Editors consider the site biased or opinionated, and its statements should be attributed. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Morning Star (UK)
No consensus
1 2 3

A B

2019 The Morning Star is a British tabloid with a low circulation and readership that the New Statesman has described as "Britain's last communist newspaper".[17] There is no consensus on whether the Morning Star engages in factual reporting, and broad consensus that it is a biased and partisan source. All uses of the Morning Star should be attributed. Take care to ensure that content from the Morning Star constitutes due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Mother Jones (MoJo)
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 5 2019 There is consensus that Mother Jones is generally reliable. Almost all editors consider Mother Jones a biased source, so its statements (particularly on political topics) may need to be attributed. Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
MSNBC
Generally reliable
1 2 2019 There is consensus that MSNBC is generally reliable. Talk show content should be treated as opinion pieces. See also: NBC News 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
MyLife (Reunion.com)
Blacklisted
Generally unreliable
Spam blacklist request 2019 Spam blacklist request 2019

1

2019 Due to persistent abuse, MyLife is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. MyLife (formerly known as Reunion.com) is an information broker that publishes user-generated content, and is considered generally unreliable. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Nation
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2020 There is consensus that The Nation is generally reliable. In the "About" section of their website, they identify as progressive. Most editors consider The Nation a partisan source whose statements should be attributed. The publication's opinion pieces should be handled with the appropriate guideline. Take care to ensure that content from The Nation constitutes due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
National Enquirer
Deprecated
Request for comment 2019

1 2 3 4 5 6

2019 The National Enquirer is a supermarket tabloid that is considered generally unreliable. In the 2019 RfC, there was weak consensus to deprecate the National Enquirer as a source, but no consensus to create an edit filter to warn editors against using the publication. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
National Geographic
Generally reliable
1 2 2018 There is consensus that National Geographic is generally reliable. For coverage by National Geographic of fringe topics and ideas, due weight and parity of sources should be considered. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
National Review (NR)
No consensus
1 2 3 4 5 6 2018 There is no consensus on the reliability of National Review. Most editors consider National Review a partisan source whose statements should be attributed. The publication's opinion pieces should be handled with the appropriate guideline. Take care to ensure that content from the National Review constitutes due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Natural News (NewsTarget)
Blacklisted
Generally unreliable
Spam blacklist request 2019

1
A B

2019 Due to persistent abuse, Natural News is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. There is a near-unanimous consensus that the site repeatedly publishes false or fabricated information, including a large number of conspiracy theories. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
NBC News
Generally reliable
1 2 2020 There is consensus that NBC News is generally reliable for news. See also: MSNBC 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
The New American
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 4 5 6 2016 There is consensus that The New American is generally unreliable for factual reporting. Some editors consider it usable for attributed opinions regarding the John Birch Society. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
The New Republic
Generally reliable
Request for comment 2020

1 2

2020 There is consensus that The New Republic is generally reliable. Most editors consider The New Republic biased or opinionated. Opinions in the magazine should be attributed. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
New Scientist
Generally reliable
1 2 2020 There is consensus that New Scientist magazine is generally reliable for science coverage. Use New Scientist with caution to verify contentious claims. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
New York (Vulture, The Cut, Grub Street, Daily Intelligencer)
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 2016 There is consensus that New York magazine, including its subsidiary publication Vulture, is generally reliable. There is no consensus on whether it is generally reliable for contentious statements. See also: Polygon, The Verge, Vox
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
3 HTTPS links HTTP links
4 HTTPS links HTTP links
New York Daily News (Illustrated Daily News)
No consensus
1 2 3 4 2020 Most editors consider the content of New York Daily News articles to be generally reliable, but question the accuracy of its tabloid-style headlines. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
New York Post (New York Evening Post, Page Six)
Generally unreliable
Request for comment 2020

1 2 3 4 5

2020 There is consensus that the New York Post is generally unreliable. A tabloid newspaper, editors criticise its lack of concern for fact-checking or corrections, including a number of examples of outright fabrication. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
The New York Times (NYT)
Generally reliable
Request for comment 2018

+38[ab]

2020 Most editors consider The New York Times generally reliable. WP:RSOPINION should be used to evaluate opinion columns, while WP:NEWSBLOG should be used for the blogs on The New York Times's website. The 2018 RfC cites WP:MEDPOP to establish that popular press sources such as The New York Times should generally not be used to support medical claims. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
The New Yorker
Generally reliable
1 2 Discussions regarding this source are stale, and consensus may have changed.
2011
There is consensus that The New Yorker is generally reliable. Editors note the publication's robust fact-checking process. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
News Break
Deprecated
Request for comment 2020 2020 News Break is a news aggregator that publishes snippets of articles from other sources. In the 2020 RfC, there was consensus to deprecate News Break in favor of the original sources. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
News of the World
Deprecated
Request for comment 2019 2019 News of the World was deprecated in the 2019 RfC. There is consensus that News of the World is generally unreliable. As is the case with The Sun, News of the World should not be used as a reference in most cases aside from about-self usage, and should not be used to determine notability. Some editors consider News of the World usable for uncontroversial film reviews if attribution is provided. News of the World shut down in 2011. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
Newsmax
No consensus
1 2 3 2020 Discussions regarding Newsmax are lacking in depth, and in focus on evaluating this source specifically. Newsmax has been cited in discussions of other sources as a low benchmark for a partisan outlet with regard to US politics, and for a propensity for comparatively fringe viewpoints. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Newsweek (pre-2013)
Generally reliable
Request for comment 2019

1 2 3 4 5

2019 There is consensus that articles from Newsweek 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 by The Newsweek Daily Beast Company (which also owned The Daily Beast). Blogs under Newsweek, including The Gaggle, should be handled with the WP:NEWSBLOG policy, though. See also: Newsweek (2013–present). 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Newsweek (2013–present)
No consensus
Request for comment 2019

1 2 3 4 5

2020 Unlike articles before 2013, post-2013 Newsweek articles are not generally reliable. From 2013 to 2018, Newsweek was owned and operated by IBT Media, the parent company of International Business Times. IBT Media introduced a number of bad practices to the once reputable magazine and mainly focused on clickbait headlines over quality journalism. Its current relationship with IBT Media is unclear, and Newsweek'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 evaluate Newsweek content on a case-by-case basis. See also: Newsweek (pre-2013). 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Next Web (TNW)
No consensus
1 2 3 4 2019 There is no consensus on the reliability of The Next Web. Articles written by contributors may be subject to reduced or no editorial oversight. Avoid using The Next Web's sponsored content. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
NNDB (Notable Names Database)
Deprecated
Request for comment 2019

1 2 3 4

2019 NNDB is a biographical database operated by Soylent Communications, the parent company of shock site Rotten.com. It was deprecated in the 2019 RfC. Editors note NNDB's poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, despite the site claiming to have an editorial process. Editors have also found instances of NNDB incorporating content from Wikipedia, which would make the use of the affected pages circular sourcing. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
NPR (National Public Radio)
Generally reliable
1 2 3 2020 There is consensus that NPR is generally reliable for news and statements of fact. NPR's opinion pieces should only be used with attribution. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Occupy Democrats
Deprecated
Request for comment 2018 2018 In the 2018 RfC, there was clear consensus to deprecate Occupy Democrats as a source à la the Daily Mail. As with Breitbart News, this does not mean it cannot ever be used on Wikipedia; it means it cannot be used as a reference for facts. It can still be used as a primary source for attributing opinions, viewpoints, and the like. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
One America News Network (OANN)
Deprecated
Request for comment 2019

1

2019 In the 2019 RfC, there was clear consensus to deprecate One America News Network as a source à la the Daily 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 a primary source when attributing opinions, viewpoints, and commentary, meaning that it should not be used as a source outside of its own article. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Onion
Generally unreliable
1 2 2019 The Onion is a satirical news website, and should not be used as a source for facts. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
OpIndia
Blacklisted
Generally unreliable
1 2 2020 Due to persistent abuse, OpIndia is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. OpIndia is considered generally unreliable due to its poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. OpIndia was rejected by the International Fact-Checking Network when it applied for accreditation in 2019. In the 2020 discussion, most editors expressed support for deprecating OpIndia. Editors consider the site biased or opinionated. The site has directly attacked (and doxed) Wikipedia editors who edit India-related articles. Posting or linking to another editor's personal information is prohibited under the outing policy, unless the editor has voluntarily disclosed the information on Wikipedia. Editors who are subject to legal risks due to their activity on Wikipedia may request assistance from the Wikimedia Foundation, although support is not guaranteed. See also: Swarajya. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
PanAm Post
Generally unreliable
Request for comment 2020 2020 There is consensus that the PanAm Post is generally unreliable for factual reporting. Most editors consider the publication biased or opinionated. Some editors note that the PanAm Post is used by other reliable sources and only believe that its opinion section should be avoided. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Patheos
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 Discussions regarding this source are stale, and consensus may have changed.
2015
Patheos is a website that hosts a collection of blogs. These blogs receive little editorial oversight and should be treated as self-published sources. Some editors have shown support for including Patheos articles as a source when cited together with other more reliable sources. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Peerage websites (self-published)
Deprecated
Request for comment 2020 Request for comment 2020

+12[ac]

2020 Two RfCs found consensus that certain self-published peerage websites are not reliable for genealogical information and should be deprecated. See § Self-published peerage websites for the full list. List
People
Generally reliable
Request for comment 2013

1 2 3 4

Discussions regarding this source are stale, and consensus may have changed.
2014
There is consensus that People magazine can be a reliable source in biographies of living persons, but the magazine should not be used for contentious claims unless supplemented with a stronger source. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Pew Research Center
Generally reliable
1 2 Discussions regarding this source are stale, and consensus may have changed.
2012
There is consensus that the Pew Research Center is generally reliable.
1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
3 HTTPS links HTTP links
4 HTTPS links HTTP links
5 HTTPS links HTTP links
6 HTTPS links HTTP links
7 HTTPS links HTTP links
8 HTTPS links HTTP links
PinkNews
Generally reliable
Request for comment 2020

1 2 3

2020 There is rough consensus that PinkNews is generally reliable for factual reporting, but additional considerations may apply and caution should be used. Most of those who commented on PinkNews' reliability for statements about a person's sexuality said that such claims had to be based on direct quotes from the subject. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Playboy
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Discussions regarding this source are stale, and consensus may have changed.
2015
There is consensus that Playboy is generally reliable. Editors note the publication's reputation for high-quality interviews and fact-checking. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Points Guy (news and reviews) (TPG)
Blacklisted
No consensus
Spam blacklist request 2018 Request for comment 2019

A B C

2019 There is no consensus on the reliability of news articles and reviews on The Points Guy. The Points Guy has advertising relationships with credit card and travel companies, and content involving these companies should be avoided as sources. The Points Guy is currently on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. See also: The Points Guy (sponsored content). 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Points Guy (sponsored content) (TPG)
Blacklisted
Generally unreliable
Spam blacklist request 2018 Request for comment 2019

A B C

2019 There is consensus that sponsored content on The Points Guy, including content involving credit cards, should not be used as sources. The Points Guy has advertising relationships with credit card and travel companies, receiving compensation from readers signing up for credit cards via the website's links. The Points Guy is currently on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. See also: The Points Guy (news and reviews). 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Politico
Generally reliable
1 2 3 4 5 6 2018 Politico is considered generally reliable for American politics. A small number of editors say that Politico is a biased source. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
PolitiFact (PunditFact)
Generally reliable
Request for comment 2016 Request for comment 2019 2019 PolitiFact is a reliable source for reporting the veracity of statements made by political candidates. PolitiFact is a reliable source for reporting the percentage of false statements made by a political candidate (of the statements checked by PolitiFact), provided that attribution is given, as a primary source. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Polygon
Generally reliable
1 2 2020 Polygon is considered generally reliable for video games and pop culture related topics. See also: The Verge, Vox, New York 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
The Post Millennial
Generally unreliable
Request for comment 2020

1

2020 There is consensus that The Post Millennial is generally unreliable. Editors have noted multiple instances of inaccurate reporting, and consider the publication to be strongly biased. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
PR Newswire
Generally unreliable
1 2 3 4 5 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 claims about the article's author. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
Press TV
Generally unreliable
Request for comment 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6

Discussion in progress
2020
There is consensus that Press TV is generally unreliable. As a state-owned media network in a country with low press freedom, Press TV may be a primary source for the viewpoint of the Iranian government, although due weight should be considered. Press TV is biased or opinionated, and its statements should be attributed. Press TV is particularly known for promoting anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, including Holocaust denial.[18] 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
2 HTTPS links HTTP links
Pride.com
No consensus
Request for comment 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 to BuzzFeed in its presentation. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
ProPublica
Generally reliable
Request for comment 2019

1

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 multiple Pulitzer Prizes. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Quackwatch
No consensus
Request for comment 2019

+13[ad]

2019 Articles written by Stephen Barrett on Quackwatch are considered generally reliable (as Barrett is a subject-matter expert) and self-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 on other 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 be attributed. It may be preferable to use the sources cited by Quackwatch instead of Quackwatch itself. Since it often covers fringe material, parity of sources should be considered. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Quadrant
Generally unreliable
Request for comment 2019 2019 Most editors consider Quadrant generally unreliable for factual reporting. The publication is a biased and opinionated source. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
Quillette
Generally unreliable
Request for comment 2020

1