Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/One giant table

This page is a test version of a potential new layout for the Perennial sources project. It is a demo and not part of the live listings. See Talk.

Sources

Shortcuts

Perennial sources
Source	Status (legend)	Discussions			Use
Source	Status (legend)	List	Last	Summary	Use
112 Ukraine WP:112UKRAINE 📌		2019 2020 2020 1 A 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. 112 Ukraine was shut down in 2021; website content is no longer accessible unless archived.	1 2
ABC News (US)		1 2	2021	There is consensus that ABC News, the news division of the American Broadcasting Company, is generally reliable. It is not to be confused with other publications of the same name.	1 2
Academic repositories WP:ACADREP 📌 WP:ACADEMIA.EDU 📌 WP:RGATE 📌 WP:ZENODO 📌		16	2024	General repositories like Academia.edu, HAL Open Archives, ResearchGate, Semantic Scholar, and Zenodo host academic papers, conference proceedings, book chapters, preprints, technical reports, etc. No filters exist for quality, and will host several unreviewed preprints, retracted papers not marked as such, unreviewed manuscripts, and even papers from predatory journals. Determine the original source of what is being cited to establish reliability. When possible, cite the original source in preference to the repository.	1 2 3
Acclaimed Music		1 2 3 4 A	2022	Acclaimed Music is considered unreliable as the site is a self-published source with little to no editorial oversight. It often aggregates lists published by other notable publications.	1
Ad Fontes Media WP:ADFONTES 📌		1 2 3 4 5	2021	There is consensus that Ad Fontes Media and their Media Bias Chart should not be used in article space in reference to sources' political leaning or reliability. Editors consider it a self-published source and have questioned its methodology.	1
Advameg (City-Data)		2019 2019 2019 +14	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 2 +43
The Age WP:THEAGE 📌		2021	2021	The Age is a newspaper based in Melbourne, Australia. There is consensus that it is generally reliable.	1
Agence France-Presse (AFP) WP:RSPAFP 📌		1 2 3	2021	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
Al Arabiya WP:ALARABIYA 📌		1 2 3 4 5	2024	There is consensus that Al Arabiya is a usable source for topics unrelated to the Saudi Arabian government. As it is state-owned by Saudi government since 2018 and is published in a country with low press freedom, editors consider Al Arabiya biased and non-independent for Saudi Arabian politics, and recommend attribution and use amongst other sources to maintain NPOV for coverage in this area. Some editors consider Al Arabiya unreliable for matters related to Saudi geopolitical interests.	1
Al Jazeera WP:ALJAZEERA 📌		2024 +16	2024	Al Jazeera is a Qatari state-funded news organization and in the 2024 RfC there was consensus that it is generally reliable. Most editors seem to agree that Al Jazeera English and especially Al Jazeera Arabic are biased sources on the Arab–Israeli conflict and on topics for which the Qatari government has a conflict of interest. Editors perceive Al Jazeera English to be more reliable than Al Jazeera Arabic. Al Jazeera's live blogs should be treated with caution, per the policy on news blogs. Note that the domain name "aljazeera.com" only started hosting Al Jazeera English content in 2011; links to aljazeera.com prior to 2011 pointed to the unaffiliated Al Jazeera Magazine.	1 2
Al Mayadeen WP:ALMAYADEEN 📌		2023	2023	Al Mayadeen is a Lebanese pan-Arabist news channel. It was deprecated in a 2023 RfC. Some editors believe it publishes lies or misrepresents sources, some describe it as propaganda.	1 2
Al-Manar (general topics) WP:ALMANAR 📌		2024 1	2024	The 2024 RfC established no consensus on the reliability of Al-Manar. As a publication of Hezbollah, editors believe it may be usable for attributed statements from Hezbollah under the conditions of WP:ABOUTSELF. It may also be usable for non-controversial topics on Lebanese culture depending on the context. See also: Al-Manar (controversial topics).	1
Al-Manar (controversial topics) WP:ALMANARPOLITICS 📌		2024 1 2	2024	In the 2024 RfC, editors generally agreed that Al-Manar is generally unreliable for topics that are controversial, especially with regards to the Arab–Israeli conflict. See also: Al-Manar (general topics).	1
Alexa Internet		2022 1 2 3 A	2022	Alexa Internet was a web traffic analysis company owned by Amazon and discontinued as of May 2022. There is no consensus on the reliability of Alexa Internet's website rankings. According to Alexa Internet, rankings of low-traffic websites are less reliable than rankings of high-traffic websites, and rankings of 100,000 and above are unreliable. A March 2022 RfC found no consensus on whether citations of Alexa Internet should be removed now that the service is defunct. Due to their instability, Alexa rankings should be excluded from infoboxes.	1
AllMovie (2024–present) WP:ALLMOVIE 📌		1 2	2025	AllMovie, previously owned by RhythmOne, is a movie database. Since its acquisition, it has operated as a mirror of Wikimedia content; using republished Wikimedia content is considered circular sourcing. See also: RhythmOne.	1
AllSides WP:ALLSIDES 📌		2022 1 2 3 4 5 6	2023	In a 2022 RfC, editors found no consensus on the reliability of AllSides as a whole. A significant minority of users noted that AllSides has been referenced in reliable sources as an accurate source for media bias ratings, while another significant minority argued that its methodology, which is partly based on the opinions of users, makes it unsuitable for Wikipedia. There is general consensus that reliability varies among the website's articles and should be determined on a case-by-case basis; while the high-confidence ratings are generally reliable as they are reviewed carefully by experts, others depend on blind user surveys that some editors consider opinionated and less reliable.	1
AlterNet		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
Amazon WP:RSPAMAZON 📌		1 2 3 4 5 6 7	2021	User reviews on Amazon are anonymous, self-published, and unverifiable, and should not be used at all. While Amazon itself is a reliable source for basic information about a work (such as release date, ISBN, etc.), it is unnecessary to cite Amazon when the work itself may serve as a source for that information. Future release dates may be unreliable.	1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
The American Conservative (TAC) WP:TAC 📌		2019 2020 2021 1 2	2023	The American Conservative is published by the American Ideas Institute, an advocacy organisation. It is a self-identified opinionated source whose factual accuracy has been questioned, and many editors say that The American Conservative should not be used as a source for facts. There is consensus that opinions sourced to it must always be accompanied with in-text attribution.	1
Amnesty International (Amnesty, AI) WP:RSPAI 📌		2022 1 2 3	2023	Amnesty International is a human rights advocacy organisation. There is consensus that Amnesty International is generally reliable for facts. Editors may on occasion wish to use wording more neutral than that used by Amnesty and in controversial cases editors may wish to consider attribution for opinion.	1
Anadolu Agency (general topics) (AA) WP:ANADOLU 📌		2019 1 2	2023	The 2019 RfC established no consensus on the reliability of Anadolu Agency. Well-established news outlets are normally considered reliable for statements of fact. However, Anadolu Agency is frequently described as a mouthpiece of the Turkish government that engages in propaganda, owing to its state-run status. See also: Anadolu Agency (controversial topics, international politics).	1 2
Anadolu Agency (controversial topics, international politics) (AA) WP:AAPOLITICS 📌		2019	2019	In the 2019 RfC, editors generally agreed that Anadolu Agency is generally unreliable for topics that are controversial or related to international politics. See also: Anadolu Agency (general topics).	1 2
Ancestry.com WP:ANCESTRY 📌		1 2 3 4 5 6	2021	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:PRIMARY, but secondary sources, where available, are usually preferred; further, see WP:BLPPRIMARY. Ancestry.com also hosts user-generated content, which is unreliable.	1
ANNA News (Abkhazian Network News Agency, Analytical Network News Agency)		2022 1	2022	ANNA News was deprecated in the 2022 RfC. It is a pro-Kremlin news agency that has been described as propaganda and has published fabricated information.	1
Answers.com (WikiAnswers)		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
Anti-Defamation League (ADL) (excluding the Israeli–Palestinian conflict and antisemitism) WP:RSPADL 📌 WP:ADLHSD 📌		2020 2024 1 2 3 4 5 6 7	2024	There is consensus that, outside the context of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, the ADL is generally a reliable source, particularly for topics related to hate groups and extremism in the U.S. There is no consensus that the ADL must always be attributed, but there is consensus that its labelling of organisations and individuals (especially as antisemitic) should be attributed. Some editors regard the ADL's opinion pieces as unreliable and should only be used with attribution. In the 2024 RfC, there was rough consensus that the ADL's hate symbol database is reliable for identifying the existence of a symbol and for straightforward descriptive facts, but not for more complex details such as a symbol's history. In such cases, in-text attribution to the ADL may be advisable.	1 2
Anti-Defamation League (ADL) (antisemitism, excluding Israel or Zionism) WP:ADLAS 📌		2020 2024 1	2024	The ADL can roughly be taken as reliable on the topic of antisemitism when Israel and Zionism are not concerned, and the reliability is a case-by-case matter. There is consensus that the labelling of organisations and individuals by the ADL as antisemitic should be attributed. The ADL has also demonstrated a habit of conflating criticism of the Israeli government's actions with antisemitism.	1
Anti-Defamation League (ADL) (Israeli–Palestinian conflict, including related antisemitism) WP:ADLPIA 📌 WP:ADLIPA 📌		2024 1 2	2024	There is consensus that the ADL is a generally unreliable source for the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, due to significant evidence that the ADL acts as a pro-Israeli advocacy group and has repeatedly published false and misleading statements as fact, un-retracted, regarding the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. The general unreliability of the ADL extends to the intersection of the topics of antisemitism and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.	1
Antiwar.com		1 2 3 4	2011	There is consensus that Antiwar.com is generally unreliable. Editors consider Antiwar.com to be biased or opinionated.	1 2
Aon WP:RSPAON 📌		2022 1	2022	In a 2022 RfC, there was consensus that Aon is generally reliable for weather-related articles. Editors pointed out that Aon often provides data not found in other sources, and care should be taken when using the source as it may be providing a different estimate than other sources, e.g. total economic damages, rather than property damage.	1
Apple Daily WP:APPLEDAILY 📌		2020 1	2021	A 2020 RfC found that Apple Daily was often but not always reliable, and that it may be appropriate to use it in articles about Hong Kong, but subject to editorial judgment, particularly if the topic is controversial and/or Apple Daily is the only source for a contested claim. There was concern that historically, it was not necessarily as reliable as it was in 2020. Apple Daily shut down in June 2021; website content is no longer accessible unless archived. Editors with access to Dow Jones Factiva can access articles published by them in print between 2012 January 1 and 2018 March 15; simplified Chinese has source code APPLDS and traditional is APPLOT.	1
Arab News		2020 1 2 3 4	2021	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
Army Recognition WP:ARMYRECOGNITION 📌		1 2 3	2025	Army Recognition is a site that reproduces press release material without any original reportage. In at least one example it has copied content without attribution from other sources. Editors allege that Army Recognition operates on a pay-for-coverage basis, providing "online marketing and advertising solutions" for the defense industry. This model may raise questions about the impartiality and independence of its content.	1 2
Ars Technica WP:ARSTECHNICA 📌		1 2 3	2022	Ars Technica is considered generally reliable for science- and technology-related articles.	1 2
Asian News International (ANI) WP:RSPANI 📌		2021	2021	Asian News International is an Indian news agency. For general reporting, Asian News International is considered to be between marginally reliable and generally unreliable, with consensus that it is biased and that it should be attributed in-text for contentious claims. For its coverage related to Indian domestic politics, foreign politics, and other topics in which the Government of India may have an established stake, there is consensus that Asian News International is questionable and generally unreliable due to its reported dissemination of pro-government propaganda.	1
AskMen WP:ASKMEN 📌		1 2 3 4 5 6	2020	There is no consensus on the reliability of AskMen. See also: IGN.	1
Association of Religion Data Archives (ARDA, Pew–Templeton Global Religious Futures) WP:THEARDA 📌 WP:GORDONCONWELL 📌 WP:GLOBALRELIGIOUSFUTURES 📌		2022 1 2	2022	ARDA is an archive repository of information pertaining to religion. The 2022 RfC did not gain a consensus on the reliability of ARDA; there was, however, a rough consensus to use the sources with in-text attribution provided that more reliable sources are unavailable.	1 2 3 4 5
Associated Press (AP) WP:RSPAP 📌		12	2024	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 2
The Atlantic (The Atlantic Monthly) WP:THEATLANTIC 📌		1 2 3 4 5	2024	The Atlantic is considered generally reliable. Editors should beware that The Atlantic does not always clearly delineate between reporting and opinion content; opinion pieces, including all articles in the "Ideas" column (theatlantic.com/ideas/), are governed by WP:RSOPINION.	1
Atlas Obscura "places" articles WP:AOPLACES 📌		1 2 3 4	2023	Atlas Obscura's "places" articles are user-generated and user-editable with minimal oversight, and the site's terms of use includes disclaimers about user submissions. Many of the "places" articles cite Wikipedia as a source of their information or otherwise lack clear or reliable sourcing. These articles should generally not be referenced on Wikipedia.	1
Atlas Obscura "articles" articles WP:AOARTICLES 📌		1 2 3 4	2023	Atlas Obscura's "articles" articles are professionally authored with editor oversight, and generally reliable. However, other areas of the site operate as a commercial travel service vendor, and the site hosts user-generated content in its "places" articles (see WP:AOPLACES)	1
The Australian WP:THEAUSTRALIAN 📌		1 2 3	2024	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
Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI)		2021	2021	There is consensus that use of Australian Strategic Policy Institute should be evaluated for due weight and accompanied with in text attribution when used. Editors consider the Australian Strategic Policy Institute to be a biased or opinionated source that is reliable in the topic area of Australian defence and strategic issues but recommend care as it is a think tank associated with the defence industry in Australia and the Australian Government.	1
The A.V. Club WP:AVCLUB 📌		1 2 3 4 A	2023	The A.V. Club is considered generally reliable for film, music and TV reviews. There is consensus that AI-generated articles are generally unreliable; The A.V. Club's parent company, G/O Media, began releasing such pieces in July 2023, usually under the byline "The A.V. Club Bot".	1
AVN (Adult Video News, AVN Magazine) WP:AVN 📌		2021	2021	AVN is considered generally reliable for the adult industry. Editors should take care to ensure the content is not a republished press release (which is marked as such in search).	1
Axios WP:AXIOS 📌		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
Baidu Baike (Baidu Wiki) WP:BAIDUBAIKE 📌		2020 1 2 3 4 5	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. The Baidu Baike domain also includes a website archiving service (baike.baidu.com/reference), which unlike the encyclopedia articles (which are hosted under baike.baidu.com/item/), are acceptable to use as accessible links for reliable sources.	1 2 3 4
Ballotpedia WP:BALLOTPEDIA 📌		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
BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) WP:RSPBBC 📌		22	2024	BBC is a British publicly funded broadcaster. It 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 2
Behind the Voice Actors (BTVA) WP:RSPBTVA 📌 WP:BTVA 📌		2022 +10	2024	There is consensus that Behind the Voice Actors is generally reliable for roles credits. Editors agree that its coverage is routine and does not contribute to notability.	1
Bellingcat WP:BELLINGCAT 📌		2019 1 2 3 4 5 6	2021	There is consensus that Bellingcat is generally reliable for news and should preferably be used with attribution. Some editors consider Bellingcat a biased source.	1
Benzinga WP:BENZINGA 📌		2025 1 2	2025	There is consensus that Benzinga does not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and often does not disclose sponsored content, and so is generally unreliable.	1
Best Gore		2021 2021	2021	There is consensus that Best Gore is a shock site with no credibility. It is deprecated and has been added to the spam blacklist. Best Gore shut down in 2020; website content is no longer accessible unless archived.	1
Bild WP:BILD 📌		2025 1 2 3	2025	Bild is a German tabloid that has been unfavourably compared to The Sun, and is considered generally unreliable. Some editors suggest that it should not be used for contentious and/or personal information about living people. Some editors suggest however that its interviews with public figures as well as its sports coverage may be usable depending on context.	1
Blaze Media (BlazeTV, Conservative Review, CRTV, TheBlaze)		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.	1 2
Blogger (blogspot.com) WP:BLOGGER 📌		21	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
Bloomberg (Bloomberg News, Bloomberg Businessweek) WP:BLOOMBERG 📌		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 2
Bloomberg profiles WP:BLOOMBERGPROFILES 📌		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
Boing Boing		1 2 3 A	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
Breitbart News WP:BREITBART 📌		2018 2018 +16	2023	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 as fact. 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. Breitbart News has directly attacked and doxed Wikipedia editors. Posting or linking to another editor's personal information is prohibited under the outing policy, unless the editor is voluntarily disclosing the information on Wikipedia.	1 2
BroadwayWorld WP:BROADWAYWORLD 📌		1 2 3 4	2023	BroadwayWorld is considered generally unreliable, as it contains many articles that reproduce press releases, disguising this as authentic journalism. As the site has limited editorial oversight, and the true author of the content of press releases is obscured, this website should generally not be used for facts about living persons.	1
Burke's Peerage		2020 1	2020	Burke's Peerage is considered generally reliable for genealogy.	1
Bustle		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
BuzzFeed WP:BUZZFEED 📌		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9	2023	Editors find the quality of BuzzFeed articles to be highly inconsistent. Respondents to a 2014 survey from the Pew Research Center on news sources in America ranked BuzzFeed at the bottom of the list. BuzzFeed may use A/B testing for new articles, which may cause article content to change. BuzzFeed operated a separate news division, BuzzFeed News, which had higher editorial standards and was hosted on a different website. See also: BuzzFeed News.	1
BuzzFeed News WP:BUZZFEEDNEWS 📌		12	2023	There is consensus that BuzzFeed News is generally reliable. BuzzFeed News operated separately from BuzzFeed, and most news content originally hosted on BuzzFeed was moved to the BuzzFeed News website in 2018. 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. BuzzFeed News shut down in May 2023, and its archives remain accessible. See also: BuzzFeed.	1 2
California Globe		2021	2021	There is consensus that The California Globe is generally unreliable. Editors note the lack of substantial editorial process, the lack of evidence for fact-checking, and the bias present in the site's material. Editors also note the highly opinionated nature of the site as evidence against its reliability.	1
The Canary		2021 1 2 3 4	2021	There is consensus that The Canary is generally unreliable. Its reporting is sensationalist at times; selective reporting, a left-wing bias, and a poor distinction between editorial and news content were also noted.	1
Catholic-Hierarchy.org		1 2 3	2025	There is consensus that Catholic-Hierarchy.org is generally unreliable. While there is some limited USEBYOTHERS, the author is not a subject-matter expert in the field of the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. Catholic-Hierarchy.org is also a self-published source and should never be used for third-party claims about living persons.	1
Cato Institute		1 2	2015	The Cato Institute is considered generally reliable for its opinion. Some editors consider the Cato Institute an authoritative source on libertarianism in the United States. There is no consensus on whether it is generally reliable on other topics. Most editors consider the Cato Institute biased or opinionated, so its uses should be attributed.	1
CBS News (CBS) WP:CBS 📌		1 2 3 4 5 6 7	2023	CBS News is the news division of CBS. It is considered generally reliable. Some editors note, however, that its television content may include superficial coverage, which might not qualify under WP:MEDRS.	1
CelebrityNetWorth (CNW) WP:CELEBRITYNETWORTH 📌		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.	1
Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR)		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
Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG, Global Research, globalresearch.ca)		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 Globalisation 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 2 3
CESNUR (Centro Studi sulle Nuove Religioni, Center for Studies on New Religions, Bitter Winter) WP:CESNUR 📌		2022 1 2 3 4	2022	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. CESNUR has an online magazine, Bitter Winter, that is also considered generally unreliable.	1 2 3
Change.org WP:CHANGE.ORG 📌		1 2	2021	Change.org is a website specializing in the creation of online petitions. As a primary source, it is advised that editors avoid Change.org as a source for certain online petitions, especially if more reliable secondary sources are available. Due to concerns over petition canvassing, Change.org is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used.	1
Check Your Fact		2024 1 2	2024	Check Your Fact is certified by the International Fact-Checking Network and considered generally reliable; despite its ownership under the deprecated Daily Caller, it has an independent newsroom with some use by others. Editors prefer reliable secondary sources over Check Your Fact when available.	1
China Daily WP:CHINADAILY 📌		2021 1	2021	China Daily is a publication owned by the Chinese Communist Party. The 2021 RfC found narrow consensus against deprecating China Daily, owing to the lack of available usable sources for Chinese topics. There is consensus that China Daily may be used, cautiously and with good editorial judgment, as a source for the position of the Chinese authorities and the Chinese Communist Party; as a source for the position of China Daily itself; as a source for facts about non-political events in mainland China, while noting that (a) China Daily's interpretation of those facts is likely to contain political spin, and (b) China Daily's omission of details from a story should not be used to determine that such details are untruthful; and, with great caution, as a supplementary (but not sole) source for facts about political events of mainland China. Editors agree that when using this source, context matters a great deal and the facts should be separated from China Daily's view about those facts. It is best practice to use in-text attribution and inline citations when sourcing content to China Daily.	1 2 3
China Global Television Network (CGTN, CCTV International) WP:CGTN 📌		2020 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8	2025	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. CGTN was formerly known as CCTV International prior to 2017, and China Central Television (CCTV) channels that are not under CGTN are not deprecated. See List of China Media Group channels for a list of CCTV and CGTN channels.	1
Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN)		1 2 3 4 5	2025	There is no consensus on the reliability of The Christian Broadcasting Network. It is a partisan source, and caution is particularly advised with any contentious topics. It may be more reliable on the subject of Christian music and films.	1
The Christian Science Monitor (CSM, CS Monitor) WP:CSMONITOR 📌		20	2016	The Christian Science Monitor is considered generally reliable for news.	1
Climate Feedback WP:CLIMATEFEEDBACK 📌		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
CNET (pre-October 2020)		17	2023	CNET is considered generally reliable for its technology-related articles prior to its acquisition by Red Ventures in October 2020. In 2023, Red Ventures began deleting thousands of old CNET articles; website content may no longer be available unless archived.	1
CNET (October 2020–October 2022)		1 2 3 4	2025	CNET was acquired by digital marketing company Red Ventures in October 2020, leading to a deterioration in editorial standards. Staff writers were pressured by company executives to publish content more favorably to advertisers in order to benefit Red Ventures' business dealings; this included both news stories and reviews.	1
CNET (November 2022–present) WP:CNET 📌		2024 2025 1 2 3	2025	Concerns over CNET's advertiser-driven editorial content remain unresolved. Separately, in November 2022, it began deploying an experimental AI tool to rapidly generate articles riddled with factual inaccuracies and affiliate links, with the purpose of increasing SEO rankings. CNET never formally disclosed its use of AI until Futurism and The Verge published reports exposing its actions. An AI tool now announced to be paused wrote more than 70 finance-related articles and published them under the byline "CNET Money Staff", over half of which received corrections after mounting pressure. In August 2024 CNET was purchased by Ziff Davis, which may mean that the reasons for considering it unreliable may no longer apply.	1
CNN (Cable News Network) WP:CNN 📌 WP:RSPCNN 📌		2019 2020 +20	2024	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
Coda Media (Coda Story) WP:CODA 📌		2021	2021	A 2021 RfC found consensus that Coda Media is generally reliable for factual reporting. A few editors consider Coda Media a biased source for international politics related to the U.S., as it has received funding from the National Endowment for Democracy, though not to the extent that it affects reliability.	1
CoinDesk WP:COINDESK 📌		2018 2019 1 2 3 4	2023	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 at the time (previously Digital Currency Group, now Bullion) has an ownership stake in a company covered by CoinDesk.	1
Common Sense Media (CSM) WP:CSM 📌		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
Consortium News WP:CONSORTIUMNEWS 📌		1 2 3 4 5	2019	There is consensus that Consortium News is generally unreliable. Certain articles (particularly those by Robert Parry) may be considered self-published, as it is unclear if any independent editorial review occurred. The outlet is known to lean towards uncritically repeating claims that are fringe, demonstrably false, or have been described by mainstream outlets as "conspiracy theories."	1
The Conversation WP:THECONVERSATION 📌		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
Correo del Orinoco		2023	2023	There is consensus that Correo del Orinoco is generally unreliable because it is used to amplify misleading and/or false information. Many editors consider Correo del Orinoco to be used by the Venezuelan government to promulgate propaganda due to its connection to the Bolivarian Communication and Information System.	1
Cosmopolitan WP:COSMOPOLITAN 📌		1 2 3 4 5	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
CounterPunch WP:COUNTERPUNCH 📌		2021 2022 +12	2022	CounterPunch is a left-wing political opinion magazine. Despite the fact that the publication has an editorial board, there is no effective editorial control over the content of the publication, so articles should be treated as self-published sources. As a consequence, the articles should generally be avoided and should not be used to establish notability unless published by subject-matter experts writing about subjects within their domain of expertise, in which case they may be considered reliable for facts. Citing CounterPunch for third-party claims about living persons is not allowed. All articles on CounterPunch must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, in particular for due weight, and opinions must be attributed. Some articles in the publication promote conspiracy theories and historical denialism, but there was no consensus to deprecate the outlet based on the most recent RfC.	1 2
Cracked.com WP:CRACKED 📌		1 2 3 4 5	2015	Cracked.com is a humor website. There is consensus that Cracked.com is generally unreliable. When Cracked.com cites another source for an article, it is preferable for editors to read and cite that source instead.	1
The Cradle WP:THECRADLE 📌		2024 1	2024	The Cradle is an online magazine focusing on West Asia/Middle East-related topics. It was deprecated in the 2024 RfC due to a history of publishing conspiracy theories and wide referencing of other deprecated sources while doing so. Editors consider The Cradle to have a poor reputation for fact-checking.	1
Crunchbase WP:CRUNCHBASE 📌		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. The technical details are that it is only listed on User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList, so citations to Crunchbase are only automatically reverted if they are in ref tags in addition to meeting the standard criteria.	1
The Daily Beast WP:DAILYBEAST 📌		1 2 3 4 5 6	2023	There is no consensus on the reliability of The Daily Beast. Most editors consider The Daily Beast a biased or opinionated source. Some editors advise particular caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons.	1
The Daily Caller WP:DAILYCALLER 📌		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 2
The Daily Dot WP:DAILYDOT 📌		2022 +13	2022	There is no consensus regarding the general reliability of The Daily Dot, though it is considered fine for citing non-contentious claims of fact. Some editors have objected to its tone or consider it to be biased or opinionated; there is community consensus that attribution should be used in topics where the source is known to be biased or when the source is used to support contentious claims of fact. Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article.	1
Daily Express WP:DAILYEXPRESS 📌		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 2
Daily Kos WP:DAILYKOS 📌		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
Daily Mail (MailOnline) WP:DAILYMAIL 📌 WP:RSPDM 📌		2017 2019 2020 54	2024	In the 2017 RfC, the Daily Mail was the first source to be deprecated on Wikipedia, and the decision was challenged and reaffirmed in the 2019 RfC. There is consensus that the Daily Mail (including its online version, MailOnline) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is generally prohibited, especially when other sources exist that are more reliable. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles. The Daily Mail has a "reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication". 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 deprecation includes other editions of the UK Daily Mail, such as the Irish and Scottish editions. The UK Daily Mail is not to be confused with other publications named Daily Mail that are unaffiliated with the UK paper. The dailymail.com domain was previously used by the unaffiliated Charleston Daily Mail, and reference links to that publication are still present.	1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Daily Mirror (Mirror) WP:DAILYMIRROR 📌		1 2 3 4 5	2020	The Daily Mirror, also known just as the Mirror, is a tabloid newspaper that publishes tabloid journalism. There is no consensus on whether its reliability is comparable to that of British tabloids such as the Daily Mail and The Sun.	1
Daily NK WP:DAILYNK 📌		2022	2022	The Daily NK is an online newspaper based in South Korea that reports on stories based inside of North Korea. There is no consensus as to if it should be deprecated or used with attribution. There is a consensus that this source, as well as all other sources reporting on North Korea, is generally unreliable. However, due to a paucity of readily accessible information on North Korea, as well as a perception that Daily NK is not more unreliable than other sources on the topic, it can be used as a source, albeit with great caution.	1
Daily Sabah WP:DAILYSABAH 📌		2020	2020	Daily Sabah is considered to be a propaganda outlet that publishes pro-Turkish government news which aims to strengthen Erdoğan's rule, spread Westernophobia, and promote Turkish government policies. Editors also pointed out that Daily Sabah publishes unfactual information such as Armenian genocide denial, and mispresenting statements. Some editors consider it to be reliable enough to cite POV of the Turkish government with in-text attribution, and uncontroversial Turkey-related events.	1
Daily Star (UK) WP:DAILYSTAR 📌		2020 1 2 3 4	2020	The Daily Star was deprecated in the 2020 RfC due to its reputation for publishing false or fabricated information.	1 2
The Daily Telegraph (UK) (excluding transgender topics) (The Telegraph, The Sunday Telegraph) WP:TELEGRAPH 📌		2022 +22	2024	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
The Daily Telegraph (UK) (transgender topics) (The Telegraph, The Sunday Telegraph)		2024 1	2024	In regards to transgender issues, there is no consensus on the reliability of The Daily Telegraph. Editors consider The Telegraph biased or opinionated on the topic, and its statements should be attributed.	1
The Daily Wire WP:DAILYWIRE 📌		2021 1 2 3 4	2021	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.	1
Deadline Hollywood WP:RSPDEADLINE 📌		1 2 3 4 5 6	2019	Deadline Hollywood is considered generally reliable for entertainment-related articles.	1 2
The Debrief WP:THEDEBRIEF 📌		2025 1	2025	In the 2025 RfC, there was clear and overwhelming consensus that The Debrief and its author Micah Hanks are generally unreliable and deprecated as a fringe source that lacks fact-checking or editorial oversight.	1
Debrett's WP:DEBRETTS 📌		2020 1	2020	There is consensus that Debrett's is reliable for genealogical information. However, their defunct "People of Today" section is considered to be not adequately independent as the details were solicited from the subjects. Editors have also raised concerns that this section included paid coverage.	1
Democracy Now! WP:DEMOCRACYNOW 📌		1 2 3 4 5	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
Den of Geek WP:DENOFGEEK 📌		1 2 A B C	2020	There is a rough consensus that Den of Geek is generally reliable for entertainment-related topics.	1
Deseret News WP:DESERET 📌		1 2 3 4	2022	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 2
Destructoid WP:DESTRUCTOID 📌		A B C D E	2017	There is a consensus that Destructoid is marginally reliable for topics on video games. As a site featuring articles written mainly by freelance journalists, consider whether the author is trusted before using Destructoid as a source in articles. Destructoid may still be used for video game reviews given that attribution is provided.	1
Deutsche Welle (DW, DW-TV) WP:DEUTSCHEWELLE 📌		1 2 3	2022	Deutsche Welle is a German state-owned international broadcaster. It is considered generally reliable. Some editors consider that the quality of DW depends on the language edition.	1
DeviantArt WP:RSPDA 📌		1 2 3 A B	2025	DeviantArt is considered a self-published source, where registered users can upload content such as art, videos and text. It is generally agreed that DeviantArt should not be used for factual claims and should only be used as a source if already cited by a reliable source. DeviantArt may also be cited in specific cases where the content is from an individual relevant to the article, subject to consensus.	1
Dexerto WP:DEXERTO 📌		2019 2023 1 2	2023	Dexerto is a website covering gaming news, internet personalities, and entertainment. Editors agree that it is a tabloid publication that rarely engages in serious journalism; while it may be used as a source on a case-by-case basis (with some editors arguing for the reliability of its esports coverage), it is usually better to find an alternative source, and it is rarely suitable for use on BLPs or to establish notability.	1 2 3
Digital Spy WP:DIGITALSPY 📌		1 2 3 4 5 A	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 2
Digital Trends WP:DIGITALTRENDS 📌		1 A	2023	There is consensus that Digital Trends is generally reliable due to its editorial standards and reputation. This does not apply to sponsored content, which is marked with fine print below the headline image's caption. Some editors expressed concern over the site's connection to Valnet, which runs several content farms.	1
The Diplomat WP:THEDIPLOMAT 📌		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
Discogs WP:DISCOGS 📌 WP:RSDISCOGS 📌		2019 2024 1 2 3 4 5 6 7	2024	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, although it should not be cited, external links to the site may be appropriate.	1
Distractify WP:DISTRACTIFY 📌		1 2 3	2023	There is consensus that Distractify is generally unreliable. Editors believe Distractify runs run-of-the-mill gossip that is unclearly either user-generated or written by staff members. Editors should especially refrain from using it in BLPs.	1
The Dorchester Review		2024	2024	There is consensus The Dorchester Review is generally unreliable, as it is not peer reviewed by the wider academic community. It has a poor reputation for fact-checking and lacks an editorial team. The source may still be used in some circumstances e.g. for uncontroversial self-descriptions, and content authored by established subject-matter experts.	1
Dotdash Meredith (About.com, The Balance, Lifewire, The Spruce, ThoughtCo, TripSavvy, Verywell) WP:DOTDASHMEREDITH 📌		2018 +17	2020	Dotdash Meredith (formerly known as About.com) operates a network of websites. Editors find the quality of articles published by About.com to be inconsistent. Some editors recommend treating About.com articles 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 Meredith's current website brands. 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 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
EADaily (EurAsia Daily) WP:EADAILY 📌		2023	2023	EADaily frequently produces false claims to advance their Kremlin-aligned viewpoints and was deprecated following a 2023 RfC.	1
The Economist WP:THEECONOMIST 📌		2022 1 2 3 4 5	2024	Most editors consider The Economist a generally reliable news magazine focused on data journalism. Distinctively, its news articles appear without bylines and mixed with commentary. Within these news articles, Wikipedia editors should use their judgement to discern factual content – which can be generally relied upon – from analytical content, which should be used in accordance with the guideline on opinion in reliable sources. Its pseudonymous commentary columns and other opinion pieces should also be handled according to this guideline.	1
The Electronic Intifada (EI) WP:ELECTRONICINTIFADA 📌		2024 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8	2024	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
Encyclopædia Britannica (Encyclopædia Britannica Online) WP:BRITANNICA 📌		15	2022	There is no consensus regarding the reliability of the Encyclopædia Britannica (including its online edition, Encyclopædia Britannica Online). Its editorial process includes fact checking and publishing corrections. Encyclopædia Britannica is a tertiary source. Some online entries are written by subject matter experts, while others are written by freelancers or editors, and entries should be evaluated on an individual basis. Editors prefer 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
Encyclopædia Iranica		1 2 3 4 5	2022	The Encyclopædia Iranica is considered generally reliable for Iran-related topics.	1
Encyclopaedia Metallum (Metal Archives, MA) WP:METALLUM 📌		2025 1 2 A B	2025	Encyclopaedia Metallum was deprecated by unanimous consensus in the 2025 RfC as a site rife with user-generated content and thus no hope of reliability.	1
Encyclopedia Astronautica		2023	2023	Encyclopedia Astronautica is a website on space history. A 2023 RfC found no consensus on the reliability of the site. There appears to be a consensus that this is a valuable resource, but it lacks editorial oversight, contains errors, and is no longer updated. Caution needs to taken in using this source.	1
Engadget		1 A	2012	Engadget is considered generally reliable for technology-related articles. Its statements should be attributed.	1
Entertainment Weekly (EW)		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
Entrepreneur (Entrepreneur India)		2020 1	2021	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.com 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
The Epoch Times (New Tang Dynasty Television, Vision Times, Vision China Times) WP:EPOCHTIMES 📌		2019 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8	2022	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 fact.	1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Ethnicity of Celebs		1 2 3 4	2024	There is consensus that Ethnicity of Celebs (ethnicelebs.com) is generally unreliable as user-generated content with no claim of accuracy or fact-checking.	1
The EurAsian Times WP:EURASIANTIMES 📌		1 2 3	2024	The EurAsian Times is an Indo-Canadian news portal, considered to be generally unreliable for a lack of fact-checking and accuracy, usually containing churnalism or otherwise sensationalist and extraordinary claims.	1
Eurogamer (USgamer)		1 2 A B	2023	There is a consensus that Eurogamer is generally reliable for topics on video games.	1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor (EMHRM, Euro-Med Monitor, Euro-Med HRM) WP:EMHRM 📌		2025 1	2025	EMHRM is an advocacy organization on a controversial topic, and should be used with attribution. It does appear to gather and responsibly report claims and information gathered directly from primary sources, and is widely used with attribution by reliable news sources. It also expresses opinions about the behavior of governments and analysis of larger events such as the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. For these, it can be cited as an opinion source; other sources are also needed to provide larger context from multiple perspectives.	1
Evening Standard (London Evening Standard) WP:THESTANDARD 📌 WP:STANDARDUK 📌		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
Examiner.com WP:EXAMINER.COM 📌		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; website content is no longer accessible unless archived.	1
Facebook (Meta) WP:RSPFB 📌 WP:RSPFACEBOOK 📌		2020 +27	2021	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
Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR)		2010 1 2 3 4 5	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
FamilySearch WP:FAMILYSEARCH 📌		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, as well as a large collection of digitized books, which should be evaluated on their own for reliability. When using primary source documents from FamilySearch, follow WP:BLPPRIMARY and avoid interpreting them with original research.	1
Famous Birthdays WP:FAMOUSBIRTHDAYS 📌 WP:FAMOUS BIRTHDAYS 📌		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
Fandom wikis (Wikia, Wikicities) WP:FANDOM 📌 WP:RSPWIKIA 📌		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A	2019	Fandom (formerly Wikia and Wikicities) wikis are 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 {{Fandom content}} template to provide the necessary attribution in these cases, and ensure the article meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines after copying.	1 2 3 4
Far Out		1 A	2025	Far Out is considered generally unreliable as a churnalism outlet that appears to engage in circular sourcing.	1
The Federalist WP:THEFEDERALIST 📌		2021 1 2 3	2021	The Federalist is generally unreliable for facts due to its partisan nature and its promotion of conspiracy theories. However, it may be usable for attributed opinions.	1
FilmAffinity		1 A B C	2018	FilmAffinity is considered generally unreliable, as the site mostly consists of user-generated content. Unlike IMDb, it is advised that editors avoid the use of FilmAffinity as an external link.	1
Financial Times (FT) WP:FINANCIALTIMES 📌		1 2 3 4 5 6	2018	The Financial Times is considered generally reliable.	1
Find a Grave WP:RSPFINDAGRAVE 📌		1 2 3 4 5 6	2021	The content on Find a Grave is user-generated, 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
Findmypast WP:RSPFINDMYPAST 📌		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 2
Flags of the World (FOTW) WP:FOTW 📌		1 2 3 4 A	2013	Flags of the World has been written off as an unreliable source in general. Although some of its pages might refer to reliable sources, it is self-published content without editorial oversight, and the hosts "disclaim any responsibility about the veracity and accuracy of the contents of the website."	1 2
Flickr WP:RSPFLICKR 📌		1 2 3	2020	Most photos on Flickr are anonymous, self-published, and unverifiable, and should not be used at all for verifying information in articles (although properly-licensed photos from Flickr can be used to illustrate articles). Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability. Note that one cannot make interpretations from Flickr photos, even from verified sources, because that is original research.	1
Forbes WP:FORBES 📌		10	2024	Forbes and Forbes.com include articles written by their staff, which are written with editorial oversight, and are generally reliable. Forbes also publishes various "top" lists which can be referenced in articles. Per below, this excludes articles written by Forbes.com contributors (or "Senior Contributors") and Forbes Advisor.	1
Forbes.com contributors WP:FORBESCON 📌		19	2025	Most content on Forbes.com is written by contributors or "Senior 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. Forbes Councils, being pay-to-publish and similarly lacking oversight, also fall into this category. Articles that have also been published in the print edition of Forbes are excluded, and are considered generally reliable. Check the byline to determine whether an article is written by a "Forbes Staff" member, "Contributor", "Senior Contributor", or "Subscriber". In addition, check underneath the byline to see whether it was published in a print issue 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
Forbes Advisor WP:FORBESADVISOR 📌		2021	2021	Forbes Advisor articles do not differentiate advertisements from normal content and contain a disclaimer that does not and cannot guarantee that any information provided is complete and makes no representations or warranties in connection thereto, nor to the accuracy or applicability thereof. Such articles can be told apart from Forbes content by having "Forbes ADVISOR" in the header and having URLs that start with "forbes.com/advisor".	1
Fox News (news excluding politics and science) WP:FOXNEWS 📌		2010 2020 2023 +14	2024	Historically, there has been consensus that Fox News is generally reliable for news coverage on topics other than politics and science. However, many editors expressed concerns about the reliability of Fox News for any topic in a 2023 RFC. No formal consensus was reached on the matter, though. See also: Fox News (politics and science), Fox News (talk shows).	1 2
Fox News (politics and science) WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS 📌 WP:FOXNEWSSCIENCE 📌		2010 2020 2022 2023 +27	2024	There is consensus Fox News is generally unreliable for the reporting of politics, especially from November 2020 onwards. On the matter of science, and on the matter of pre-November 2020 politics, there is a consensus that the reliability of Fox News is unclear and that additional considerations apply to its use. As a result, Fox News is considered marginally reliable and generally does not qualify as a "high-quality source" for the purpose of substantiating exceptional claims in these topic areas. Editors perceive Fox News to 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
Fox News (talk shows) WP:FOXNEWSTALKSHOWS 📌		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9	2024	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
The Free Press (The FP, Common Sense)		1 2 3	2024	The Free Press is a media company founded by Bari Weiss as a counter-mainstream media publication. It has some use by others. Some editors consider it a self-published source with biased reporting.	1 2
FrontPage Magazine (FPM, FrontPageMag.com) WP:FPM 📌		2020 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9	2022	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 2
Game Developer (Gamasutra) WP:GAMEDEVELOPER 📌 WP:GAMASUTRA 📌		1 2 A	2020	Game Developer is considered generally reliable for subjects related to video games.	1 2
Game Informer WP:GAMEINFORMER 📌		1 2 A B C D	2021	Game Informer is considered generally reliable for video games. Originally shut down by GameStop in August 2024 with website content no longer accessible unless archived, Neill Blomkamp's company Gunzilla Games purchased the brand and site, which went back up in March 2025, with all staff returning from time at closing, and an aim for the publication to retain total editorial independence.	1
GameSpot WP:GAMESPOT 📌		16	2024	GameSpot is considered generally reliable for topics on video games. The site's forum content qualifies as user-generated content and thus generally unreliable. Some editors have expressed concerns that release date information may not be reliable due to the site sharing a database with GameFAQs. Some older articles released in the 1990s may have incorrect publication dates.	1 2
The Gateway Pundit (TGP)		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
Gawker WP:GAWKER 📌		2019 1 2 3 4 5 6 7	2019	Gawker (2002–2016) was a gossip blog that frequently published articles on rumors and speculation without named authors. When Gawker is the only source for a piece of information, the information would likely 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. In 2021, the publication was relaunched under Bustle Digital Group, and subsequently closed in 2023. The second incarnation has not been discussed at RSN.	1
Gazeta Wyborcza		1 2	2021	There is consensus that Gazeta Wyborcza is generally reliable. Some editors express concern about its sensationalist tendency in recent years.	1
GB News WP:GBNEWS 📌		1 2 3 4 A B	2024	There is consensus that GB News is generally unreliable.	1 2
Genealogy.eu		2025 A	2025	Genealogy.eu (genealogy.euweb.cz) was deprecated in the 2025 RfC due to persistent misuse. It is the self-published work of a single non-expert (Marek Miroslav) and is not considered reliable.	1 2
Geni.com WP:GENI 📌		2025 1 2 3 4 5	2025	Geni.com was deprecated in the 2025 RfC due to its persistent misuse and limited utility. Geni.com is an open wiki, which is a type of self-published source. Primary source documents from Geni.com may be usable in rare circumstances, but editors should be careful to comply with policies on original research and due weight.	1
Genius (Rap Genius) WP:GENIUS 📌		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 falls under WP:BLPSELFPUB, and usage of such commentary should conform to that policy.	1 2
Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) (names and locations)		2021 1	2022	The Geographic Names Information System is a United States-based geographical database. It is generally reliable for its place names and locations/coordinates. Editors should take care that GNIS uses a different convention for its coordinates, using a particular feature of a location rather than the geometric center that most WikiProjects use.	1
Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) (feature classes)		2021	2021	The Geographic Names Information System is a United States-based geographical database. It is generally unreliable for its feature classes and it should not be used to determine the notability of geographic features as it does not meet the legal recognition requirement.	1
GEOnet Names Server (GNS) (names and locations)		2021	2021	The GEOnet Names Server is a United States-based geographical database that covers non-U.S. countries. It is considered to be close to generally reliable for its place names and locations/coordinates, though there are concerns that GNS may not always be accurate and sometimes report the existence of places that do not even exist. Editors are advised to exercise caution when using it.	1
GEOnet Names Server (GNS) (feature classes)		2021	2021	The GEOnet Names Server is a United States-based geographical database that covers non-U.S. countries. It is generally unreliable for its feature classes and it should not be used to determine the notability of geographic features as it does not meet the legal recognition requirement.	1
Gizmodo WP:GIZMODO 📌		1 2 3 4	2023	There is consensus that Gizmodo is generally reliable for technology, popular culture, and entertainment. There is no consensus on whether it is generally reliable for controversial statements. There is consensus that AI-generated articles are generally unreliable; Gizmodo's parent company, G/O Media, began releasing such pieces in July 2023, usually under the byline "Gizmodo Bot".	1
GLAAD WP:GLAAD 📌		1 2	2024	GLAAD is generally considered reliable for their area of expertise on LGBTQ topics. Some editors consider GLAAD biased or opinionated, so its uses should be attributed.	1
Global Times (Huanqiu Shibao) WP:GLOBALTIMES 📌		2020 1 2 3 4 5	2021	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. As with other Chinese news sites, the Global Times website may host announcements from government agencies not written by the tabloid. Authors are advised to find alternate web pages with the same content.	1 2
GlobalSecurity.org WP:GLOBALSECURITY 📌		2022 +11	2022	GlobalSecurity.org is an unreliable user-contributed and scraper site given to plagiarism. In the 2022 RfC, a slight majority of editors held that globalsecurity.org should be regarded as generally unreliable, with a significant minority arguing for deprecation. The site should not be used to back factual claims on Wikipedia. GlobalSecurity.org should not be confused with globalresearch.ca.	1
The Globe and Mail		2021	2021	In a 2021 RfC, editors found a strong consensus that The Globe and Mail is generally reliable for news coverage and is considered a newspaper of record.	1
GoFundMe (YouCaring) WP:GOFUNDME 📌		2020	2020	GoFundMe is a crowdfunding website specializing in funding for certain life events. As a primary source, it should usually be avoided for topics involving crowdfunding campaigns where better sources are available. The 2020 RfC gained a consensus for GoFundMe to be placed on the Wikipedia spam blacklist; links must be whitelisted before they can be used. In 2018, crowdfunding site YouCaring was acquired by GoFundMe; YouCaring's content is no longer accessible unless archived.	1 2
Goodreads WP:GOODREADS 📌		1 2	2018	Goodreads is a social cataloging site comprising user-generated content. As a self-published source, Goodreads is considered generally unreliable.	1
Google Maps (Google Street View) WP:GOOGLEMAPS 📌		1 2 3 4 5 6 7	2022	Google Maps and Google Street View may be useful for some purposes, including finding and verifying geographic coordinates and other basic information like street names. However, especially for objects like boundaries (of neighborhoods, allotments, etc.), where other reliable sources are available they should be preferred over Google Maps and Google Street View. It can also be difficult or impossible to determine the veracity of past citations, since Google Maps data is not publicly archived, and may be removed or replaced as soon as it is not current. Inferring information solely from Street View pictures may be 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 2
GQ (GQ Magazine) WP:RSPGQ 📌		1 2	2019	There is consensus that GQ is generally reliable. It is noted by editors for having quality editorial oversight for non-contentious topics.	1 2
The Grayzone WP:GRAYZONE 📌		2020 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
Greco-Roman literary sources WP:GRLIT 📌 WP:GRECOROMAN 📌		1	2025	Greco-Roman literary sources, such as the writings of Aristotle, Cicero, Herodotus, Livy, and Plutarch, must be used in accordance with WP:PRIMARY: editors may not analyze or synthesize material found in them. Editors must take care not to present the claims of such sources uncritically. Statements made by such sources should be clearly attributed to them, rather than presented as objective fact. An entire article, or large parts thereof, may not be based only on such sources. The weight given to one of these sources should be roughly proportional to its treatment in modern, published scholarship on the same subject, and this scholarship should be cited when possible. In some instances, old or public domain editions and translations of these sources will not reflect current scholarly readings or views.	—
The Green Papers		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
The Guardian (TheGuardian.com, The Manchester Guardian, The Observer) WP:GUARDIAN 📌 WP:THEGUARDIAN 📌		20	2024	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 2 3
The Guardian blogs WP:GUARDIANBLOG 📌		10	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 2 3
Guido Fawkes		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
Guinness World Records (The Guinness Book of Records, The Guinness Book of World Records) WP:GUINNESS 📌 WP:GWR 📌		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
Haaretz (Ḥadashot Ha'aretz) WP:HAARETZ 📌		10	2021	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 2
Hansard (UK Parliament transcripts, House of Commons, House of Lords) WP:HANSARD 📌		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 the British parliamentary proceedings and British 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 2 3 4 5 6
Hardcore Gaming 101		1 2 A B C D	2018	There is a rough consensus that Hardcore Gaming 101 is generally reliable for topics on video games, especially articles written by Kurt Kalata or John Szczepaniak. Exercise caution when citing articles written by any other author, especially in older publications.	1
Healthline WP:HEALTHLINE 📌		2023 2023 1 2	2023	Healthline is a medical resource that is substantially written by non-expert freelance writers and reviewed by non-expert advisors. The content is frequently incorrect misinformation, sometimes dangerously so. Due to the heightened requirements for biomedical and medical sources on Wikipedia, the consensus of editors in the 2023 RfC was to deprecate Healthline as an unusable source that cannot meet WP:MEDRS and to blacklist Healthline for the safety and well-being of our readers. References to Healthline should be removed from Wikipedia.	1
Heat Street		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
Heavy.com WP:HEAVY.COM 📌		1 2 3	2022	There is consensus that Heavy.com should not be relied upon for any serious or contentious statements, including dates of birth. When Heavy.com cites another source for their own article, it is preferable to read and cite the original source instead.	1
The Heritage Foundation (The Daily Signal) WP:HERITAGEFOUNDATION 📌		2025 2025 1 2 3 4	2025	Due to security concerns, The Heritage Foundation is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist: there is evidence that the group has planned to doxx Wikipedia editors, and links to it should be bypassed or whitelisted. Editors who are victimized by doxxing tactics may request assistance from the Wikimedia Foundation, although support is not guaranteed. The Heritage Foundation is an American conservative think tank; editors have found that it promotes disinformation. Heritage and its then-publication The Daily Signal were found generally unreliable due to the presumption of unreliability for think tanks and reporting such as climate change denial; the 2025 RfC deprecated Heritage. However, The Daily Signal was spun off from the Heritage Foundation in June 2024, and the 2025 RfC close did not address its reliability or functional independence.	1
The Hill WP:THEHILL 📌		10	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
The Hindu WP:THEHINDU 📌		1 2 3 4	2022	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
HispanTV WP:HISPANTV 📌		2019	2019	HispanTV was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed overwhelming consensus that the TV channel is generally unreliable and sometimes broadcasts outright fabrications. Editors listed multiple examples of HispanTV broadcasting conspiracy theories and Iranian propaganda.	1 2
History (The History Channel) WP:RSPHISTORY 📌		1 2 3	2021	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
The Hollywood Reporter (THR) WP:THR 📌		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
Hope not Hate (Searchlight)		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 2
HuffPost (excluding politics) (The Huffington Post) WP:HUFF 📌 WP:HUFFPO 📌 WP:HUFFPOST 📌		2020 +13	2021	A 2020 RfC found HuffPost staff writers fairly reliable for factual reporting on non-political topics, but notes that they may give prominence to topics that support their political bias and less prominence to, or omit, things that contradict it. HuffPost's reliability has increased since 2012; articles before 2012 are less reliable and should be treated with more caution. HuffPost uses clickbait headlines to attract attention to its articles, thus the body text of any HuffPost article is considered more reliable than its headline. See also: HuffPost (politics), HuffPost contributors.	1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
HuffPost (politics) (The Huffington Post) WP:HUFFPOLITICS 📌		2020 +11	2024	In the 2020 RfC, there was no consensus on HuffPost staff writers' reliability for political topics. The community considers HuffPost openly biased on American politics. There is no consensus on its reliability for international politics. See also: HuffPost (excluding politics), HuffPost contributors.	1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
HuffPost contributors (The Huffington Post) WP:HUFFPOCON 📌		2020 +18	2020	Until 2018, the U.S. edition of HuffPost published content written by contributors with near-zero editorial oversight. These contributors generally did not have a reputation for fact-checking, and most editors consider them highly variable in quality. Editors show consensus for treating HuffPost contributor articles as self-published sources, unless the article was written by a subject-matter expert. HuffPost contributor articles should never be used for third-party claims about living persons. In 2018, HuffPost discontinued its contributor platform, but old contributor articles are still online. 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 (excluding politics), HuffPost (politics).	1 2
Human Events		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. See also: The Post Millennial.	1
Idolator		1 2	2014	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
IGN (Imagine Games Network) WP:IGN 📌		12	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
IMDb (Internet Movie Database) WP:IMDB 📌		2019 +33	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. 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:IMDB-EL).	1
iNaturalist WP:INATURALIST 📌		1 2 3 4	2025	iNaturalist, a "social network of naturalists, citizen scientists, and biologists built on the concept of mapping and sharing observations of biodiversity across the globe", is not considered a reliable source, though it may be a good source for photographs. "WP:INATURALIST" redirects here. For iNaturalist as a source of open-licensed images, see c:Commons:iNaturalist.	1
The Independent WP:THEINDEPENDENT 📌 WP:INDYUK 📌		2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9	2024	The Independent, a British newspaper, is considered a reliable source for non-specialist information. In March 2016, the publication discontinued its print edition to become an online newspaper; some editors advise caution for articles published after this date.	1
Independent Journal Review (IJR) WP:IJR 📌		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
Independent Media Center (Indymedia, IMC) WP:IMC 📌 WP:INDYMEDIA 📌		1 2	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 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
The Indian Express WP:INDIANEXP 📌		2020	2020	The Indian Express is considered generally reliable under the news organizations guideline.	1
Indiegogo		2020 2020	2020	Indiegogo is a crowdfunding website specializing in funding for start-up charities or businesses. As a primary source, it should usually be avoided for topics involving crowdfunding campaigns where better sources are available. The 2020 RfC gained a consensus for Indiegogo to be placed on the Wikipedia spam blacklist; links must be whitelisted before they can be used.	1
Infowars (NewsWars, Banned.video, National File) WP:INFOWARS 📌		2018 2018 2018 2024 1 2	2024	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 sources exist that are more reliable. Infowars should not be used for determining notability, or used as a secondary source in articles. In November 2024, The Onion (see RSP entry) attempted to buy the site at its bankruptcy auction, but was subsequently blocked by a judge citing concerns over the auction.	1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Inquisitr		1 2 3	2021	Inquisitr is a news aggregator, although it does publish some original reporting. There is consensus that Inquisitr is a generally unreliable source. Editors note that where Inquisitr has aggregated news from other sources, it is better to cite the original sources of information.	1
Business Insider (excluding culture) (Insider, Markets Insider, Tech Insider) WP:BI 📌 WP:BUSINESSINSIDER 📌		2020 2022 +16	2025	There is no consensus on the reliability of Insider. The site's syndicated content, which may not be clearly marked, should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher. See also: Insider (culture).	1 2 3
Insider (culture) WP:BICULTURE 📌		2021 2021	2021	There is consensus that Insider is generally reliable for its coverage in its culture section. See also: Insider (excluding culture).	1 2
Instagram (IG, Insta, The Gram) WP:RSPIG 📌 WP:RSPINSTAGRAM 📌		2023 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8	2023	As a social networking service, Instagram is covered by the following policies and guidelines: WP:SOCIALMEDIA, WP:RSSELF, WP:SPS and WP:UGC.	1
Inter Press Service (IPS)		1 2	2011	The Inter Press Service is a news agency. There is consensus that the Inter Press Service is generally reliable for news.	1 2 3
The Intercept		1 2 3 4	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
International Business Times (IBT, IBTimes) WP:IBTIMES 📌		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 2 3 4 5 6
International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) WP:IFCN 📌		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
Investopedia WP:INVESTOPEDIA 📌		1 2 3 4 5	2023	Investopedia is a tertiary source on finances, owned by Dotdash. A number of users have reported inaccurate and low-quality content on this website. It is advised not to use Investopedia, and to cite other, higher quality sources instead.	1
IslamQA.info		1 2	2022	IslamQA.info is a Q&A site on Salafism founded and supervised by Muhammad Saalih al-Munajjid. There is no consensus on whether it could be used for the Salaf Movement, with more reliable secondary sources recommended and in-text attribution if utilised. It is considered generally unreliable for broader Islam-related topics due to it representing a minor viewpoint. Some editors also consider the website a self-published source due to the lack of editorial control.	1
Jacobin WP:JACOBIN 📌		2021 2025 1 2 3 4 5	2025	Jacobin is a U.S.-based magazine that describes itself as a leading voice of the American left, offering socialist perspectives on politics, economics, and culture and predominantly publishes analysis and opinion pieces. Per WP:RSEDITORIAL, editors should prefer citing straight news over citing such pieces whenever possible and take care to adhere to the neutral point of view policy, for example by quoting and attributing statements that present its authors' opinions and by ensuring that due weight is given to Jacobin's perspective amongst others'. Information from Jacobin not covered under RSEDITORIAL is considered generally reliable albeit WP:BIASED, while the reliability of articles authored by Branko Marcetic has been considered questionable.	1 2
JAMA (The Journal of the American Medical Association) WP:JAMA 📌		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
Jeff Sneider (The InSneider) WP:JEFFSNEIDER 📌 WP:THEINSNEIDER 📌		1 A B C D	2025	Jeff Sneider is an American entertainment journalist with tenure at trades Variety and TheWrap. Currently reporting as a self-published source through the newsletter The InSneider and via The Hot Mic podcast, consensus has determined he is generally reliable in the field, fulfilling the criteria of subject-matter expert. When using Sneider's self-published reports as a source, they must be accompanied with intext attribution, especially concerning reporting on casting of productions, respecting WP:BLP, and where additional considerations may apply on a case-by-case basis. See also: WP:MCURS.	1 2
The Jerusalem Post WP:JERUSALEMPOST 📌		2024 1 2 3	2024	The Jerusalem Post is generally reliable but should be treated with caution when making extraordinary claims regarding the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. It should be used as a source for the Israeli–Palestinian conflict only to cite basic facts or if its reporting is validated by additional reporting from another source not similarly limited.	1
The Jewish Chronicle (The JC) WP:THEJC 📌 WP:RSPJC 📌		2021 2024 1 2 3 4 5 6	2024	In the 2024 RfC, there was consensus that The Jewish Chronicle is generally reliable for news until 2015. Additional considerations apply for Palestine/Israel topics between 2015 and 2020, with some concern that related topics may also require further considerations. Post-2020, The Jewish Chronicle is considered generally unreliable regarding Palestine/Israel topics, and requires caution regarding related topics. In the 2021 RfC, there was no consensus on whether The Jewish Chronicle is reliable for topics related to the British Left, Muslims, and Islam; there is otherwise a rough consensus it is biased in these topics. Where used, in-text attribution is recommended for its coverage of these topics.	1
Jewish Virtual Library (JVL) WP:RSPJVL 📌		2020 1 2 3 4 5 6 A	2021	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
Jezebel WP:JEZEBEL 📌		1 2 3 4	2023	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. The website shut down in November 2023 but was relaunched in December 2023.	1
Jihad Watch WP:JIHADWATCH 📌		2021 1 2 3	2021	Jihad Watch was deprecated in the 2021 RfC; of the editors who commented on the substance of the proposal, they were unanimous that the source is unreliable. It is a blog generally regarded as propagating anti-Muslim conspiracy theories.	1
Joshua Project (Believers in Christ from a Muslim Background: A Global Census, WEC International) WP:JOSHUAPROJECT 📌		2021 +12	2022	The Joshua Project is an ethnological database created to support Christian missions. It is considered to be generally unreliable due to the lack of any academic recognition or an adequate editorial process. The Joshua Project provides a list of sources from which they gather their data, many of which are related evangelical groups and they too should not be used for ethnological data as they are questionable sources.	1 2
JRank		1 2 3 4 5 6	2022	JRank is considered a search engine or content farm, and is thus considered generally unreliable. Numerous concerns have been raised about copyright violations.	1
Kickstarter WP:KICKSTARTER 📌		2020 2020 A	2020	Kickstarter is a crowdfunding website specializing in funding for new works of fiction. As a primary source, it should usually be avoided for topics involving crowdfunding campaigns where better sources are available. The 2020 RfC gained a consensus for Kickstarter to be placed on the Wikipedia spam blacklist; links must be whitelisted before they can be used.	1
Kirkus Reviews WP:KIRKUS 📌		1 2 3 4 5	2023	Most content by Kirkus Reviews is considered to be generally reliable. Kirkus Indie is a pay-for-review program for independent authors: its content is considered to be questionable and to not count towards notability, in part because the author can choose whether or not the review is published. Whether or not a review is a "Kirkus Indie" can be determined by the presence of a "Review Program: KIRKUS INDIE" tag at the end of the article.	1
Know Your Meme (KYM) WP:KNOWYOURMEME 📌 WP:KYM 📌		1 2 3 4 5 6	2022	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
Kommersant		2021 1 2 3	2021	Kommersant is a liberal business broadsheet newspaper with nationwide distribution in the Russian Federation. Editors generally believed that Kommersant is one of the better publications in Russia and believe its reporting is generally reliable on most matters. However, editors have expressed concerns regarding how limited media freedom in Russia may affect the source's reporting, and as such caution should be applied when the source is used in relation to events in which the Russian government has a close interest. In such contexts, use of the source should generally be accompanied with intext attribution.	1 2 3
Kotaku (pre-2023)		1 2 3 A B C D	2022	There is no clear consensus on the reliability of Kotaku prior to 2023 with regards to topics on video games. Editors seem to agree that the site's editorial standards strengthened slightly in 2010, but then deteriorated in the years leading up to 2023. The site's blog posts should be handled with WP:RSOPINION. See also: Kotaku (2023–present).	1 2 3
Kotaku (2023–present) WP:KOTAKU 📌		A B	2023	Kotaku articles written from 2023 onwards are generally unreliable as the site has used content farms and AI-generated content in a non-transparent manner. See also: Kotaku (pre-2023).	1 2 3
LADbible WP:LADBIBLE 📌		1 2	2025	Along with sister sites GAMINGbible, SPORTbible, Tyla, and UNILAD, LADbible publishes news, entertainment, and celebrity interviews. The site is considered to be generally unreliable and of poor quality, posting repackaged clickbait content with unclear editorial oversight and little fact-checking.	1
Land Transport Guru		1 2 3	2024	Due to it being a self-published source, Land Transport Guru is considered generally unreliable.	1
Last.fm WP:LASTFM 📌		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
Lenta.ru (March 2014–present) WP:LENTA.RU 📌		2019 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 sources exist that are more reliable. Lenta.ru should not be used for determining notability, or used as a secondary source in articles. Lenta.ru's reliability pre-March 2014 was not discussed in the RfC.	1
LifeSiteNews (Campaign Life Coalition) WP:LIFESITENEWS 📌		2019 1 2 3 4 5 6	2019	LifeSiteNews was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the site publishes false or fabricated information.	1 2
LinkedIn (LinkedIn Pulse) WP:RSPLINKEDIN 📌		10	2023	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
LionhearTV WP:LIONHEARTV 📌		2025 1	2025	LionhearTV is a blog owned by eMVP Digital. The 2025 RfC deemed it generally unreliable as a self-published source. However, there was no consensus to deprecate the source at the time.	1
LiveJournal		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
LiveLeak		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 was an online video platform that hosted 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. LiveLeak shut down in May 2021; website content is no longer accessible unless archived.	1
Los Angeles Times (L.A. Times) WP:LATIMES 📌		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9	2023	Most editors consider the Los Angeles Times generally reliable. Refer to WP:NEWSBLOG for the newspaper's blog.	1
Lulu.com (Lulu Press) WP:LULU 📌		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
LWN.net (Linux Weekly News)		1 2 3	2023	Journalistic articles written for LWN.net are generally considered reliable as a source of information on free and open source software and issues of interest to that community of users and developers. However, the website also hosts archives of some mailing lists for free software, which is user-generated content and a primary source.	1
Mail & Guardian		2021	2021	The Mail & Guardian is a South African newspaper. There is consensus that it is generally reliable.	1
The Mail on Sunday WP:MAILONSUNDAY 📌		2020 1 2	2020	There is clear and substantial consensus that the Mail on Sunday is generally unreliable, and a slightly narrower consensus that the source should be deprecated. Those supporting deprecation point to factual errors, asserted fabrications, and biased reporting identified on the part of the source, with reference to specific instances, and to common ownership of the source with a previously deprecated source.	1 2 3 4 5
Marquis Who's Who (Who's Who in America)		1 2 3 4 5 6 7	2022	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 2
Mashable (non-sponsored content) WP:MASHABLE 📌		2021 1 2 3 4 5 6	2021	In a 2021 RfC, editors achieved a consensus that while non-sponsored content from Mashable is generally fine, Mashable tends towards less formal writing and is geared at a particular niche (tech news and pop culture). As such, non-sponsored content should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, especially if the subject matter is outside of Mashable's usual focus.	1
Mashable (sponsored content)		2021 1 2 3 4 5 6	2021	In the RfC, editors achieved a consensus that extra attention needs to be paid when it comes to sponsored content, especially ensuring that the content was written by Mashable staff and not the sponsor themselves.	1
The Mary Sue		1 2 3 A B	2022	There is consensus that The Mary Sue is generally reliable. Most editors consider The Mary Sue biased or opinionated. Opinions should be attributed.	1
MDPI (Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute) WP:MDPI 📌		1 2 3 4 5 6 7	2021	Publications in MDPI journals are considered questionable. Editors have raised concerns about the robustness of MDPI's peer review process and their lack of selectivity in what they publish. Originally placed on Beall's List of predatory open journals in 2014, MDPI was removed from the list in 2015, while applying pressure on Beall's employer. As of early 2024, about 5% of MDPI journals had been rejected by the Norwegian Scientific Index, and another 5% are under review.	1
MEAWW (Media Entertainment Arts WorldWide)		1 2 3	2021	MEAWW is a tabloid site covering pop culture and the internet. The site often employs clickbait and is considered generally unreliable.	1
Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC) WP:MBFC 📌 WP:MB/FC 📌		1 2 3 4 5	2025	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
Media Matters for America (MMfA) WP:MEDIAMATTERS 📌		2010 2019 +11	2023	There is consensus that Media Matters is marginally reliable and that its articles should be evaluated for reliability on a case-by-case basis. As a partisan advocacy group, their statements should be attributed.	1
Media Research Center (MRC, CNSNews.com, Cybercast News Service, MRCTV, NewsBusters) WP:MRC 📌		2010 2019 2020 1 2 3 4 5 6	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 2 3 4
Mediaite WP:MEDIAITE 📌		1 2 3 4	2023	There is some consensus that Mediaite is only marginally reliable, and should be avoided where better sources are available. Editors consider the source to inappropriately blur news and opinion, and due weight should be considered if no other reliable sources support a given statement.	1
Medium WP:MEDIUM 📌		2022 1 2 3 4	2022	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 for third-party claims about living persons. A 2022 RfC also found that Cuepoint, Medium's music publication, is marginally reliable, with editors stating that its reliability depends on the qualification of the author.	1
Meduza		2025	2025	Meduza is a news outlet run by Russian dissidents. There is consensus that it is generally reliable.	1
Metacritic (GameRankings) WP:METACRITIC 📌		10	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. In December 2019, video game aggregate site GameRankings shut down and merged with Metacritic; GameRankings's content is no longer accessible unless archived.	1 2
Metal-experience.com WP:METALEXPERIENCE 📌		2021	2021	Metal-experience.com was determined to be generally unreliable for factual reporting.	1
MetalSucks		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
Metro (UK) WP:METRO 📌		11	2025	The reliability of Metro has been compared to that of the Daily Mail and other British tabloids. Articles published in the print newspaper are considered more reliable than articles published only on the metro.co.uk website. The newspaper articles were previously segregated online via the metro.news domain and are presently tagged under "metro newspaper" at the metro.co.uk domain.	1 2
Metro (UK) (soap operas) WP:METROSOAPS 📌		1 2 3 A	2025	There is consensus that the Metro is reliable as a source on soap operas.	1 2
Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) WP:MEMRI 📌		2020 1 2 3 4 A	2023	The reliability of MEMRI is considered to lie between no consensus and generally unreliable. Many editors argue that MEMRI has a history of providing misleading coverage and that the source should be used with caution if at all.	1 2
Middle East Monitor (MEMO) WP:MEMO 📌		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A	2024	There is no consensus over the reliability of Middle East Monitor (MEMO). Previously consensus was established that it is a partisan think tank, with opinions ranging from "sometimes usable with attribution" to "unreliable".	1
MintPress News WP:MINTPRESS 📌		2019 1	2025	MintPress News was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the site publishes false or fabricated information.	1 2 3 4
Le Monde diplomatique WP:LEMONDEDIPLOMATIQUE 📌		1 2 3 4	2018	There is consensus that Le Monde diplomatique is generally reliable. Some editors consider Le Monde diplomatique to be a biased and opinionated source.	1 2
Mondoweiss WP:MONDOWEISS 📌		2024 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8	2024	Mondoweiss is a news website operated by the Center for Economic Research and Social Change (CERSC), an advocacy organization. There is no consensus on the reliability of Mondoweiss. Editors consider the site biased or opinionated, and its statements should be attributed.	1
Morning Star (UK)		1 2 3 4 A B	2024	The Morning Star describes itself as a British "reader-owned co-operative and unique as a lone socialist voice in a sea of corporate media" and has low circulation. 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
Mother Jones (MoJo) WP:MOTHERJONES 📌		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
MSNBC WP:MSNBC 📌		2020 1 2 3 4	2022	There is consensus that MSNBC is generally reliable. Talk show content should be treated as opinion pieces. See also: NBC News	1
MyLife (Reunion.com)		2019 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 2
The Nation WP:THENATION 📌		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9	2022	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
National Enquirer		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
National Geographic (Nat Geo) WP:NATGEO 📌		1 2 3 4	2023	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
National Post (Postmedia Network) WP:NATIONALPOST 📌		2024 1 2 3 4 5 6	2024	National Post is considered to be a generally reliable newspaper.	1
National Review (NR) WP:NATIONALREVIEW 📌		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
Natural News (NewsTarget) WP:NATURALNEWS 📌		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 an exceptionally large number of conspiracy theories.	1 2 +494
NBC News WP:NBC 📌		1 2 3 4	2024	There is consensus that NBC News is generally reliable for news. See also: MSNBC	1
The Needle Drop WP:THENEEDLEDROP 📌 WP:FANTANO 📌		2021 1 A B C	2021	There is consensus that additional considerations apply when considering whether the use of The Needle Drop as a source is appropriate. There is currently strong consensus that Anthony Fantano's reviews that are published via The Needle Drop are self-published sources. There is currently rough consensus that Fantano is considered to be an established subject-matter expert as it pertains to music reviews and that these reviews may be used in an article as attributed opinion. However, per Wikipedia policy regarding self-published sources, these reviews should never be used as third-party claims about living people. There is also currently a rough consensus that Fantano's reviews do not always constitute due weight and that discretion should be applied on a case-by-case basis when determining if a review from The Needle Drop is appropriate to include in a given article. Articles on the theneedledrop.com website are unreliable due to a lack of an editorial policy.	1
The New American WP:NEWAMERICAN 📌		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
New Eastern Outlook		2022	2022	In the 2022 RfC, there is consensus to deprecate New Eastern Outlook. Editors note that it is considered a Russian propaganda outlet by multiple reliable sources, and numerous examples of publishing false content.	1
The New Republic WP:NEWREPUBLIC 📌		2020 1 2 3 4	2024	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
New York (Vulture, The Cut, Grub Street, Daily Intelligencer) WP:RSPNEWYORK 📌 WP:RSPVULTURE 📌		1 2 3 4 5	2021	There is consensus that New York magazine, including its subsidiary website Vulture, is generally reliable. There is no consensus on whether it is generally reliable for contentious statements. See also: Polygon (pre-2025), The Verge, Vox	1 2 3 4
New York Daily News (Illustrated Daily News) WP:NYDN 📌		1 2 3	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
New York Post (NY Post, New York Evening Post, Page Six) (excluding entertainment) WP:NYPOST 📌		2020 +14	2024	There is consensus the New York Post is generally unreliable for factual reporting, especially with regard to politics, particularly New York City politics. A tabloid newspaper, editors criticise its lack of concern for fact-checking or corrections, including examples of outright fabrication. Editors consider the New York Post more reliable before it changed ownership in 1976, and particularly unreliable for coverage involving the New York City Police Department. A 2024 RfC concluded that the New York Post is marginally reliable for entertainment coverage; see below. This consensus does not apply to the broadsheet publication of the same name, that existed from 1801–1942.	1 2
New York Post (NY Post, New York Evening Post, Page Six, Decider) (entertainment) WP:DECIDER 📌 WP:PAGESIX 📌		2024 1 2 3	2024	There is consensus that the New York Post (nypost.com ) and its sub-publications Decider (decider.com ) and Page Six are considered to be marginally reliable sources for entertainment coverage, including reviews, but should not be used for controversial statements related to living persons.	1 2 3
The New York Times (NYT) WP:NYT 📌 WP:NYTIMES 📌		2018 +46	2024	There is consensus that The New York Times is 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
The New Yorker		1 2	2011	There is consensus that The New Yorker is generally reliable. Editors note the publication's robust fact-checking process.	1
The New Zealand Herald (NZ Herald)		2021 1	2023	There is consensus that The New Zealand Herald is generally reliable.	1
News of the World WP:NEWSOFTHEWORLD 📌		2019 1	2021	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; website content is no longer accessible unless archived.	1 2
NewsBlaze		2021 1	2021	NewsBlaze was unanimously deprecated by snowball clause consensus in the 2021 RfC. Editors cite NewsBlaze's publication of false and/or fabricated information, conspiracy theories, the site's sourcing practices, and copyright concerns.	1 2
NewsBreak (News Break) WP:NEWSBREAK 📌		2020	2020	NewsBreak is a news aggregator that publishes snippets of articles from other sources. In the 2020 RfC, there was consensus to deprecate NewsBreak in favor of the original sources.	1
NewsFront WP:NEWSFRONT 📌		2019 2019 1	2019	Due to persistent abuse, NewsFront is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. NewsFront was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed unanimous consensus that the site publishes fake news and Russian propaganda. The use of NewsFront as a reference should be generally prohibited, especially when other sources exist that are more reliable. NewsFront should not be used for determining notability, or used as a secondary source in articles.	1 2
Newslaundry		2020	2020	There is consensus that Newslaundry is generally reliable. Some editors have expressed concerns regarding possible bias in its political narratives and reporting on rival publications; in cases where this could reasonably apply, attribution is recommended, and sufficient.	1
Newsmax WP:NEWSMAX 📌		2020 1 2 3	2022	Newsmax was deprecated by snowball clause consensus in the November 2020 RfC. Concerns of editors included that Newsmax lacks adherence to journalistic standards, launders propaganda, promulgates misinformation, promotes conspiracy theories and false information for political purposes, and promotes medical misinformation such as COVID-19-related falsehoods, climate change denialism, conspiracy theories, and anti-vaccination propaganda.	1 2
NewsNation (general topics) WP:NEWSNATION 📌		2025	2025	There is a consensus that NewsNation is generally reliable for matters not related to UFOs or UAPs. See also: NewsNation (UFOs, UAPs).	1
NewsNation (UFOs, UAPs) WP:UFONATION 📌		2025	2025	There is a consensus that NewsNation is generally unreliable for the topic of UFOs or UAPs. Editors pointed to NewsNation's lead reporter on UFOs, Ross Coulthart, having a well-documented history of promoting conspiracy theories in that topic area. See also: NewsNation (general topics).	1
Newsweek (pre-2013)		2019 +11	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. See also: Newsweek (2013–present).	1
Newsweek (2013–present) WP:NEWSWEEK 📌		2019 +11	2024	Unlike articles before 2013, Newsweek articles since 2013 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. In addition, as of April 2024, Newsweek has disclosed that they make use of AI assistance to write articles. See also: Newsweek (pre-2013).	1
The Next Web (TNW)		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
NGO Monitor (Non-governmental Organization Monitor) WP:NGOMONITOR 📌		2024 1	2024	There is a consensus that NGO Monitor is not reliable for facts. Editors agree that, despite attempts to portray itself otherwise, it is an advocacy organization whose primary goal is to attack organizations that disagree with it or with the Israeli government regarding the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Some editors also express concern about past attempts by NGO Monitor staff to manipulate coverage of itself on Wikipedia.	1
NME (New Musical Express) WP:RSPNME 📌		1 2	2020	There is consensus that British publication NME is generally reliable for content related to its areas of expertise, which include music.	1
NNDB (Notable Names Database) WP:NNDB 📌		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
NPR (National Public Radio) WP:RSPNPR 📌		1 2 3 4 5	2024	There is consensus that NPR, an American public service broadcaster, is generally reliable for news and statements of fact. NPR's opinion pieces should only be used with attribution.	1
Occupy Democrats (Washington Press) WP:OCCUPYDEMOCRATS 📌		2018	2018	In the 2018 RfC, there was clear consensus to deprecate Occupy Democrats as a source à la the Daily Mail. This does not mean it cannot ever be used on Wikipedia; it means it cannot be used as a reference for facts. It can still be used as a primary source for attributing opinions, viewpoints, and the like.	1 2
Office of Cuba Broadcasting (Radio y Television Martí, martinoticias.com) WP:OCB 📌 WP:RYTM 📌 WP:MARTI 📌		2024 2024 1	2024	Any platforms operated by the Office of Cuba Broadcasting of the U.S. Agency for Global Media, including but not limited to Radio y Television Martí (RyTM) and its website, martinoticias.com, are deprecated. There is consensus that RyTM has poor editorial controls that fall below professional standards of journalism, presents opinion as fact, reports on unsubstantiated information, and promotes propaganda, including anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.	1
OKO.press WP:OKO 📌		2021 2024 1 2	2024	OKO.press is a Polish investigative journalism and fact-checking website. There is consensus that it is generally reliable in its reporting, though some editors consider it a biased source.	1
One America News Network (OANN) WP:OANN 📌		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
The Onion		1 2 3	2024	The Onion is a satirical news website, and should not be used as a source for facts.	1
OpIndia WP:OPINDIA 📌		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. OpIndia 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 is voluntarily disclosing 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 2
Our Campaigns		2021	2021	Our Campaigns is considered generally unreliable due to its publishing of user-generated content.	1
PanAm Post		2020 2023	2023	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 sources that are reliable and only believe that its opinion section should be avoided.	1
Patheos WP:PATHEOS 📌		2022 1 2 3	2022	Patheos is a website that hosts a collection of blogs. These blogs receive little editorial oversight and should be treated as self-published sources.	1
La Patilla		2023 1	2023	La Patilla is considered marginally reliable as a news source covering Venezuela, with several additional considerations. Aggregated content should not be used at all. Avoid referencing articles on La Patilla that themselves reference unreliable sources, as editors have concerns about editorial oversight in such cases. Editors note a clear political bias, be extremely cautious in referencing coverage of politics. Some editors note that the bias may also affect choice of topics. Avoid use in contentious topics, e.g. COVID-19. Avoid for controversial WP:BLP claims.	1
PBS (Public Broadcasting Service) WP:RSPPBS 📌		1 2 3 4 5 6	2021	The Public Broadcasting Service is an American public broadcaster. It is considered generally reliable by editors.	1
Peerage websites (self-published)		2020 2020 +12	2020	Two RfCs found consensus that certain self-published peerage websites are not reliable for genealogical information and should be deprecated. See WP:RSP § Self-published peerage websites for the full list.	List
People WP:PEOPLEMAG 📌		2013 1 2 3 4 5 6 7	2022	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
People Make Games		2023	2023	There is consensus that People Make Games is generally reliable for the topic of video games, although care should be taken if using the source for WP:BLP-related information due to concerns that they have no clear editorial policy, and they are a WP:EXPERTSPS.	—
Pew Research Center		1 2	2012	There is consensus that the Pew Research Center is generally reliable.	1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
An Phoblacht		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
Pinkvilla WP:PINKVILLA 📌		2025 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A	2025	Due to concerns centered around the reliability of box office numbers and lack of authenticity, in the 2025 RfC, there was consensus that Pinkvilla is generally unreliable.	1
PinkNews WP:PINKNEWS 📌		2020 +10	2024	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
Planespotters.net WP:PLANESPOTTERS 📌		1 2 A B C	2023	Although Planespotters.net has been widely used for aviation articles, there is consensus that it is generally unreliable. The website's content is mostly self-published or user-generated, unverified, with many instances of inaccurate reporting.	1
Playboy		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8	2015	There is consensus that Playboy is generally reliable. Editors note the publication's reputation for high-quality interviews and fact-checking.	1
The Points Guy (news and reviews) (TPG)		2018 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 2
The Points Guy (sponsored content) (TPG)		2018 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
Politico WP:POLITICO 📌		2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7	2024	Politico is considered generally reliable for American politics. A small number of editors say that Politico is a biased source.	1
PolitiFact (PunditFact)		2016 2019	2019	PolitiFact is a reliable source for reporting the veracity of statements made by political candidates as well as the percentage of false statements made by a political candidate (of the statements checked by PolitiFact), provided that attribution is given.	1
Polygon (pre-May 2025)		1 2 A B C D	2020	Polygon is considered generally reliable for video games and pop culture related topics during its ownership by Vox Media. See also: The Verge, Vox, New York	1
Polygon (May 2025–present) WP:POLYGON 📌		A B	2025	In May 2025, Vox Media sold Polygon to Valnet, which promptly laid off most staff; as of May 2025, this event's long-term impact on reliability is unknown. Editors have expressed concern over the site's ownership by Valnet, which runs several content farms. Articles should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis until the status of editorial deterioration is confirmed. See also: WP:VALNET	1
The Post Millennial WP:POSTMIL 📌		2020 1 2	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. See also: Human Events.	1
PR Newswire WP:PRNEWSWIRE 📌		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 2
Preprints WP:RSNPREPRINTS 📌 WP:ARXIV 📌 WP:BIORXIV 📌 WP:MEDRXIV 📌		2022 +11	2015	Preprint repositories, like arXiv, bioRxiv, medRxiv, PeerJ Preprints, Preprints.org, and SSRN contain papers that have undergone moderation, but not necessarily peer review. There is consensus that preprints are self-published sources, and are generally unreliable with the exception of papers authored by established subject-matter experts. Verify whether a preprint paper has been 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 the preprint repository). See also WP:SPSPREPRINT.	1 2 3
Press TV WP:PRESSTV 📌		2020 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7	2021	In the 2020 RfC, editors found a clear consensus to deprecate Press TV, owing to its status as an Iranian government propaganda outlet that publishes disinformation, conspiracy theories, antisemitic content including Holocaust denial, and a host of other problematic content.	1 2 3 4
Pride.com		2020	2020	There is consensus that Pride.com is marginally reliable and that its articles should be evaluated for reliability on a case-by-case basis. Editors consider Pride.com comparable to BuzzFeed in its presentation.	1
Project Veritas (James O'Keefe, O'Keefe Media Group) WP:VERITAS 📌		2023 2021 1 2 3 A B C	2023	Due to persistent abuse, Project Veritas is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. In the 2023 RfC, there was overwhelming consensus to deprecate James O'Keefe personally, the O'Keefe Media Group, Project Veritas and future O'Keefe outlets as sources, due to O'Keefe's documented history of deliberate fabrication. There were also strong minorities for adding O'Keefe's works to the spam blacklist and barring even about-self claims. Citations to O'Keefe's work in any medium and claims based on any such citations should be removed.	1 2
ProPublica WP:PROPUBLICA 📌		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
Quackwatch		2019 +14	2020	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
Quadrant		2019	2019	Most editors consider Quadrant generally unreliable for factual reporting. The publication is a biased and opinionated source.	1
Quillette WP:QUILLETTE 📌		2020 1 2 3 4	2021	There is consensus that Quillette is generally unreliable for facts, with non-trivial minorities arguing for either full deprecation or "considerations apply". Quillette is primarily a publication of opinion, and thus actual usage in articles will usually be a question of whether or not it is WP:DUE for an attributed opinion rather than whether it is reliable for a factual claim.	1
Quora WP:QUORA 📌		1 2 3 4	2019	Quora is a Q&A site. As an Internet forum, it is a self-published source that incorporates user-generated content, and is considered generally unreliable. Posts from verified accounts on Quora can be used as primary sources for statements about themselves. Posts from verified accounts of established experts may also be used to substantiate statements in their field of expertise, in accordance with the policy on self-published sources.	1
Radio Free Asia (RFA) WP:RSPRFA 📌 WP:RADIOFREEASIA 📌		2021 1 2 3 4	2022	Radio Free Asia can be generally considered a reliable source. In particularly geopolitically charged areas, attribution of its point of view and funding by the U.S. government may be appropriate. Per the result of a 2021 RfC, editors have established that there is little reason to think RFA demonstrates some systematic inaccuracy, unreliability, or level of government co-option that precludes its use.	1
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) WP:RFE/RL 📌 WP:RADIOFREEEUROPE 📌 WP:RADIOLIBERTY 📌		2024 2024 2021 1 2 3 4 5 6	2024	Additional considerations apply to the use of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL). RFE/RL should be used cautiously, if at all, for reporting published from the 1950s to the early 1970s, when RFE/RL had a documented relationship with the CIA. RFE/RL may be biased in some subject areas (particularly through omission of relevant, countervailing facts), and in those areas, it should be attributed in the article body. There is no consensus as to what subject areas require attribution. The scope of topics requiring attribution of RFE/RL should be decided on a case-by-case basis.	1
Rappler WP:RAPPLER 📌		1 2 3	2018	There is consensus that staff content by Rappler is generally reliable. The IMHO section consists of opinions by readers, and not by paid staff. The defunct x.rappler.com section functioned as a self-published blogging service, and is therefore considered generally unreliable.	1
Rate Your Music (RYM, Cinemos, Glitchwave, Sonemic) WP:RATEYOURMUSIC 📌 WP:RYM 📌		2019 1 2 A	2022	Rate Your Music was deprecated in the 2019 RfC. The content on Rate Your Music is user-generated, and is considered generally unreliable.	1 2 3 4
Raw Story WP:RAWSTORY 📌		2021 1 2 3 4 5	2021	There is consensus that Raw Story is generally unreliable for factual reporting, based upon a pattern of publishing false and sensationalized stories. Editors almost unanimously agree that the source is biased and that in-text attribution should accompany each use of the source.	1
RealClearPolitics (RCP, RealClearInvestigations) WP:REALCLEARPOLITICS 📌		2021 1	2021	There is no consensus as to RealClearPolitics's reliability. They appear to have the trappings of a reliable source, but their tactics in news reporting suggest they may be publishing non-factual or misleading information. Use as a source in a Wikipedia article should probably only be done with caution, and better yet should be avoided.	1 2
Reason WP:REASONMAGAZINE 📌 WP:REASONNEWS 📌		1 2 3	2021	There is consensus that Reason is generally reliable for news and facts. Editors consider Reason to be a biased or opinionated source that primarily publishes commentary, analysis, and opinion articles. Statements of opinion should be attributed and evaluated for due weight.	1
Red Ventures WP:REDVENTURES 📌		2024 1	2024	There is consensus that the online properties of Red Ventures are generally unreliable post-acquisition. Editors express concern that Red Ventures, as a matter of policy, uses AI-authored content on its properties in a non-transparent and unreliable manner. No consensus was reached with respect to Red Ventures' print publications. Sources sold by Red Ventures in 2022 to Fandom were not discussed in the RfC. See also: CNET (November 2022–present), ZDNet (October 2020–present).
Reddit WP:RSREDDIT 📌 WP:RSPREDDIT 📌		1 2 3 4 5 6	2023	Reddit is a social news and discussion website. Reddit contains mostly user-generated content, and is considered both self-published and generally unreliable. Interview responses written by verified interviewees on the r/IAmA subreddit are primary sources, and editors disagree on their reliability. The policy on the use of sources about themselves applies.	1
RedState		1 2	2020	There is consensus that RedState should not be used as a source of facts. Opinion pieces from RedState are likely to be undue.	1
The Register ("El Reg")		1 2 3 4 5 A	2017	The Register is considered generally reliable for technology-related articles. Some editors say that The Register is biased or opinionated on topics involving Wikipedia.	1 2
Religious scriptural texts (e.g. Bible, Quran) WP:RSPSCRIPTURE 📌		2020 1 2 3 4	2021	Scriptural texts, like the Bible and the Quran, are primary sources only suitable for attributed, relevant quotes and in compliance with other Wikipedia content policies and guidelines. Content that interprets or summarizes scriptural passages or narratives should generally be cited to appropriate scholarly sources (for example, in the academic field of religious studies) and attributed when appropriate. Analysis of scriptural content by Wikipedia editors is prohibited by the Wikipedia policy regarding original research, and a 2020 discussion found no consensus on whether unsourced summaries of scriptural texts should be allowed under MOS:PLOTSOURCE.	—
Republic TV (Republic World) WP:REPUBLICTV 📌		2021 1 2	2021	In the 2021 RfC, there was a consistent and overwhelming consensus to deprecate Republic TV. Editors cite hoaxes, fake news, fabrication, misinformation and conspiracy theories.	1 2
Reuters WP:REUTERS 📌		1 2 3	2018	Reuters is a news agency. There is consensus that Reuters is generally reliable. Syndicated reports from Reuters that are published in other sources are also considered generally reliable. Press releases published by Reuters are not automatically reliable.	1
RhythmOne (AllMusic, AllMovie pre-2024, AllGame, All Media Guide, AllRovi) WP:ALLMUSIC 📌		29	2024	RhythmOne (who acquired All Media Guide, formerly AllRovi) has operated the websites AllMusic, AllMovie (until 2024), and AllGame (defunct). There is consensus that RhythmOne websites are usable for entertainment reviews with in-text attribution. Some editors question the accuracy of these websites for biographical details and recommend more reliable sources when available. Editors also advise against using AllMusic's genre classifications from the website's summaries at the top of a page. Listings without accompanying prose do not count toward notability. See also: AllMovie, following its acquisition from RhythmOne.	1 2 3
RIA Novosti WP:RIANOVOSTI 📌		10	2024	RIA Novosti was an official news agency of the Russian government. There is a broad consensus that it is a biased and opinionated source. It is generally considered usable for official government statements and positions. There is no consensus on whether it is reliable for other topics, though opinions generally lean towards unreliability. See also: Sputnik, which replaced the international edition of RIA Novosti.	1 2
Rolling Stone (culture) WP:ROLLINGSTONE 📌 WP:ROLLINGSTONECULTURE 📌		2021 1 2 3 4 A	2021	There is consensus that Rolling Stone has generally reliable coverage on culture matters (i.e., films, music, entertainment, etc.). Rolling Stone's opinion pieces and reviews, as well as any contentious statements regarding living persons, should only be used with attribution. The publication's capsule reviews deserve less weight than their full-length reviews, as they are subject to a lower standard of fact-checking. See also Rolling Stone (politics and society), 2011–present, Rolling Stone (Culture Council).	1
Rolling Stone (politics and society, 2011–present) WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS 📌		2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A	2023	According to a 2021 RfC discussion, there is unanimous consensus among editors that Rolling Stone is generally unreliable for politically and societally sensitive issues reported since 2011 (inclusive), though it must be borne in mind that this date is an estimate and not a definitive cutoff, as the deterioration of journalistic practices happened gradually. Some editors have said that low-quality reporting also appeared in some preceding years, but a specific date after which the articles are considered generally unreliable has not been proposed. Previous consensus was that Rolling Stone was generally reliable for political and societal topics before 2011. Most editors say that Rolling Stone is a partisan source in the field of politics, and that their statements in this field should be attributed. Moreover, medical or scientific claims should not be sourced to the publication.	1
Rolling Stone (Culture Council) WP:ROLLINGSTONECON 📌		2021 1	2021	There is unanimous consensus among editors that Culture Council articles (of URL form rollingstone.com/culture-council/) are self-published sources and are, in most aspects, equivalent to Forbes- and HuffPost*-contributors. Editors, however, have also expressed concern that at least some of the content published is promotional and thus not usable. Editors should thus determine on a case-by-case basis whether the opinions published there are independent and also if they constitute due weight. Usage of these sources for third-party claims in biographies of living persons as well as medical or scientific claims is not allowed.	1 2
Rotten Tomatoes WP:ROTTENTOMATOES 📌		2023 +16	2024	Rotten Tomatoes is considered generally reliable for its review aggregation and its news articles on film and TV. There is no consensus on whether its blog articles and critic opinion pages are generally reliable for facts. There is consensus that user reviews on Rotten Tomatoes are generally unreliable, as they are self-published sources. Reviewers tracked by Rotten Tomatoes are not automatically reliable for their reviews, while there is no consensus on whether their "Top Critics" are generally reliable. There is consensus that Rotten Tomatoes should not be used for biographical information, cast and crew data, or other film and television data, as it is sourced from user-generated and user-provided content with a lack of oversight and verification.	1
Royal Central		2022 1 2	2022	The 2022 RfC found a consensus to deprecate Royal Central on the grounds that it lacked serious editorial standards and hosted plagiarized content.	1
RT (Russia Today, ANO TV-Novosti, Ruptly, Redfish, Maffick) WP:RT.COM 📌 WP:RUSSIATODAY 📌		2020 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8	2022	There is consensus that RT is an unreliable source, publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated. Many editors describe RT as a mouthpiece of the Russian government that engages in propaganda and disinformation.	1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
RTÉ (Raidió Teilifís Éireann)		2023	2023	RTÉ is an Irish public service broadcaster. There is consensus that RTÉ is generally reliable.	1
Salon WP:SALON.COM 📌		10	2023	There is no consensus on the reliability of Salon. Editors consider Salon biased or opinionated, and its statements should be attributed.	1
Science-Based Medicine WP:SBM 📌 WP:SBMED 📌 WP:SCIENCEBASEDMEDICINE 📌		2019 2025 1 2 3	2025	There is a general consensus that at least some articles on Science-Based Medicine can be considered self-published, and substantial disagreement over whether the site's editorial control is adequate. Some material on the site may not be substantially reviewed if reviewed at all. As such, material from this site should be used with caution and with attribution and furthermore should not on its own be used to support negative or controversial content in BLPs. Particular articles from the site may still be reliable on the basis of self-published sources by experts; those should be considered on an individual basis.	1
ScienceBlogs		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A	2012	ScienceBlogs is an invitation-only network of blogs. There is no consensus on the reliability of ScienceBlogs articles in general. Most editors consider ScienceBlogs articles written by subject-matter experts reliable, though articles outside the writer's relevant field are not. As a self-published source it should not be used as a source of information on other living persons. Since it often covers fringe material, parity of sources may be relevant.	1
ScienceDirect topic page		1 2 3 4	2023	ScienceDirect is an online bibliographical database run by Elsevier. In addition to academic publications, the website maintains machine-generated "topic pages" consisting of quotations from publications in the database. These topic pages change over time, presenting a challenge to verifiability. Citations should be made to the actual, underlying publications quoted by the topic page.	1
Scientific American (SA, SciAm)		1 2	2020	Scientific American is considered generally reliable for popular science content. Use WP:MEDPOP to determine whether the publication's medical coverage should be used.	1
SCOTUSblog WP:RSPSCOTUSBLOG 📌		2021 1 2	2021	In a 2021 RfC, there was strong consensus that SCOTUSblog is generally reliable for law-related topics. Some authors on SCOTUSblog are subject-matter experts, but editors do not consider the website an academic source. Editors recommend in-text attribution for SCOTUSblog's opinion and analysis articles.	1
Screen Rant WP:SCREENRANT 📌 WP:SCREEN RANT 📌		2021 1 A B	2021	There is consensus that Screen Rant is a marginally reliable source. It is considered reliable for entertainment-related topics, but should not be used for controversial statements related to living persons. See also: WP:VALNET	1
Scribd WP:SCRIBD 📌		1 2 3 4	2016	Scribd operates a self-publishing platform for documents and audiobooks. It is considered generally unreliable, especially for biographies of living persons. Anyone can upload any document they like and there is no assurance that it hasn't been manipulated. Many documents on Scribd's self-publishing platform violate copyrights, so linking to them from Wikipedia would also violate the WP:COPYVIOEL guideline and the WP:COPYVIO policy. If a particular document hosted on the platform is in itself reliable, editors are advised to cite the source without linking to the Scribd entry.	1
Sherdog		2020	2020	In the 2020 RfC, Sherdog was determined to be not self-published and can be used for basic information on MMA fighters and matches. However, it is considered less reliable than ESPN and other generally reliable sources, so use with caution.	1
Simple Flying WP:RSPSIMPLEFLYING 📌 WP:SIMPLEFLYING 📌		2025 1 2 3	2025	Simple Flying was deprecated in the 2025 RfC. Editors agreed that the website engages in churnalism and that its articles often contain inaccuracies.	1
Sixth Tone (general topics) WP:SIXTHTONE 📌		2020	2020	Sixth Tone is usable for general non-political topics, such as Chinese society and culture. See also: Sixth Tone (politics).	1
Sixth Tone (politics) WP:SIXTHTONEPOLITICS 📌		2020	2020	Sixth Tone is published by the Shanghai United Media Group, which is government-controlled. Editors consider Sixth Tone generally unreliable for politics. See also: Sixth Tone (general topics).	1
The Skeptic's Dictionary		1 2 3 4	2020	The Skeptic's Dictionary is a book by Robert Todd Carroll that expanded into a website. The website is a self-published source (by a subject-matter expert) and should not be used as a source of information on other living persons. Attribution may be necessary. In some cases, it's preferable to read and cite the sources cited by The Skeptic's Dictionary. As it often covers fringe material, parity of sources may be relevant.	1
Skeptical Inquirer		2022 1 A	2022	A 2022 RfC established reasonably clear consensus that Skeptical Inquirer is generally reliable. The Arbitration Committee previously found that it is not considered a self-published source, and that it should be used in a manner similar to other opinion sources.	1
The Skwawkbox		1 2 3	2024	The Skwawkbox is considered generally unreliable because it is self-published. Most editors describe The Skwawkbox as biased or opinionated.	1
Sky News Australia		2022 1	2024	In the 2022 RfC, there is a consensus that additional considerations apply to Sky News Australia, and that it should not be used to substantiate any exceptional claims. The talk shows for Sky News Australia engage in disinformation and should be considered generally unreliable. The majority of articles labeled as "news" contain short blurbs and video segments, which should similarly be considered unreliable. For articles with significant written content, caution is advised. Sky News Australia is not to be confused with the UK Sky News; the two are presently unaffiliated.	1
Sky News (UK) WP:SKYNEWSUK 📌		1 2 3 4	2024	Sky News (UK) is considered an ordinary WP:NEWSORG and is thus presumed generally reliable. Sky News UK is unaffiliated with Sky News Australia. Sky News UK has partial ownership of Sky News Arabia.	1
Snopes WP:SNOPES 📌		15	2021	Snopes is certified by the International Fact-Checking Network, and is considered generally reliable. Attribution may be necessary. Since it often covers fringe material, parity of sources may be relevant.	1
Social Blade		2024 1 2	2024	Editors consider Social Blade, a social media analytics website, reliable when it comes to objective statistics and data. This does not apply to the site's "grades", "rankings", and "estimated earnings" information, which have dubious methodologies. There is consensus that Social Blade is ineffective in determining notability as it is a primary source.	1
SourceWatch		1 2 3	2016	As an open wiki, SourceWatch is considered generally unreliable. SourceWatch is operated by the Center for Media and Democracy.	1
The South African		2024	2024	The South African was ruled as no-consensus on reliability in the 2024 RfC, however there have been issues relating to plagiarism from Wikipedia within some articles. Consensus was to make additional considerations, pending any further instances of copying.	1
South China Morning Post (SCMP, Sunday Morning Post) WP:SCMP 📌		2020 1 2 3	2020	The South China Morning Post is widely considered to be the English-language newspaper of record in Hong Kong. In the 2020 RFC, there was consensus that the SCMP is generally reliable. However, in addition, there is a rough consensus that additional considerations may apply for the newspaper's coverage of certain topics, including the Chinese Communist Party and the SCMP's current owner, Alibaba. Editors may apply higher scrutiny when dealing with the SCMP's coverage of such topics.	1
Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) WP:SPLC 📌		2025 +20	2025	The Southern Poverty Law Center is considered generally reliable on topics related to hate groups and extremism in the United States. As an advocacy group, the SPLC is a biased and opinionated source. The organization's views, especially when labeling hate groups, should be attributed per WP:RSOPINION. Take care to ensure that content from the SPLC constitutes due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy. Some editors have questioned the reliability of the SPLC on non-United States topics. SPLC classifications should not automatically be included in the lead section of the article about the group which received the classification. The decision to include should rather be decided on a case-by-case basis.	1
SouthFront (South Front) WP:SOUTHFRONT 📌		2019 2019 1	2020	Due to persistent abuse, SouthFront is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. SouthFront was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed unanimous consensus that the site publishes fake news and Russian propaganda. The use of SouthFront as a reference should be generally prohibited, especially when other sources exist that are more reliable. SouthFront should not be used for determining notability, or used as a secondary source in articles.	1 2
Space.com WP:SPACE.COM 📌		1 2	2021	Space.com may be reliable for astronomy and spaceflight news, and has a reputation for being generally accurate. Space.com articles often have a sensational tone, which might degrade their quality, so it is necessary to check the author's qualification below the article. Care should also be taken as the site publishes a lot of syndicated material and is prone to occasional churnalism.	1
SparkNotes		1 2	2018	SparkNotes is a study guide. Editors consider SparkNotes usable for superficial analyses of literature, and recommend supplementing SparkNotes citations with additional sources.	1
The Spectator WP:SPECTATOR 📌		1 2	2020	The Spectator primarily consists of opinion pieces and these should be judged by WP:RSOPINION, WP:RSEDITORIAL, and WP:NEWSBLOG.	1 2
Der Spiegel (Spiegel Online, SPON)		10	2018	There is consensus that Der Spiegel is generally reliable. Articles written by Claas Relotius are fabrications, and are thus unreliable.	1
Spirit of Metal		1 2	2010	Spirit of Metal is considered a self-published source and generally unreliable.	1
Sports Illustrated (pre-June 2019)		1 2 3 4	2025	There is a general consensus that work by Sports Illustrated pre-acquisition by Maven Networks in June 2019 is considered generally reliable for sports-related news.	1
Sports Illustrated (June 2019–present) WP:RSPSI 📌		1 2 3 4	2025	There is a general consensus that at least some articles by Sports Illustrated post-acquisition by Maven Networks in June 2019 are considered unreliable. Following the purchase, Maven employed independent contractors for low pay and no benefits to write for the magazine, leading to a gradual decline in quality. This culminated in November 2023 when it was revealed that artificial intelligence (AI) had been used to write product review articles with little to no human oversight. While some veteran writers recognized as subject matter experts remain reliable on a case-by-case basis, editors should exercise caution to ensure that articles were not produced by AI or uncredited authors bylined as "SI Staff".	1
Sportskeeda WP:SPORTSKEEDA 📌		1 2 3 4	2023	Sportskeeda is considered generally unreliable due to a consensus that there is little or no editorial oversight over the website's content, which is largely user-written.	1
Sputnik WP:SPUTNIK 📌		2020 1 2 3 4 5	2022	There is consensus that Sputnik is an unreliable source that publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail. Sputnik is considered a Russian propaganda outlet that engages in bias and disinformation, a significant proportion of editors endorse that view, with some editors considering it less reliable than Breitbart News. See also: RIA Novosti, whose international edition was replaced by Sputnik.	1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Stack Exchange (Stack Overflow, MathOverflow, Ask Ubuntu)		1 2 3 A	2023	Stack Exchange is a network of Q&A sites, including Stack Overflow, MathOverflow, and Ask Ubuntu. As an Internet forum, it is a self-published source that incorporates user-generated content, and is considered generally unreliable.	1 2 3 4 5 6
StarsUnfolded		1 2 3	2020	There is consensus that StarsUnfolded is unreliable as it is a self-published source.	1
Statista WP:STATISTA 📌		1 2 3 4 5	2023	Statista aggregates statistical information from a number of sources, many of which are reliable. It is not the source of the statistics it displays, so should not be cited directly. It may be useful as a research tool to find sources of statistical information.	1
The Straits Times WP:STRAITSTIMES 📌		2021 1 2	2024	The Straits Times is Singapore's English-language newspaper of record and is considered generally reliable. However, its coverage of politically sensitive topics such as local politics, government policy and the ruling People's Action Party (PAP) should be approached with additional considerations, due to Singapore's poor record on freedom of speech and press. Editors are encouraged to critically assess material from this source, especially (but not limited to) the period between 1982 and 2021.	1
The Sun (UK) (The Sun on Sunday, The Irish Sun, The Scottish Sun, The U.S. Sun) WP:THESUN 📌		2019 2024 +16	2024	The Sun was deprecated in the 2019 RfC. There is consensus that The Sun is generally unreliable. References from The Sun are actively discouraged from being used in any article and they should not be used for determining the notability of any subject. The RfC does not override WP:ABOUTSELF, which allows the use of The Sun for uncontroversial self-descriptions. Some editors consider The Sun usable for uncontroversial sports reporting, although more reliable sources are recommended. This deprecation does not apply to the broadsheet publication of the same name, that existed from 1964–1969.	1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Swarajya WP:SWARAJYA 📌		1 2 3	2021	Due to persistent abuse, Swarajya is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. Swarajya is considered generally unreliable due to its poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. In the 2020 discussion, most editors expressed support for deprecating Swarajya. Editors consider the publication biased or opinionated. Swarajya was formerly the parent publication of OpIndia, and frequently republishes content from OpIndia under the "Swarajya Staff" byline. See also: OpIndia.	1
The Sydney Morning Herald		2021 1	2022	There is consensus that The Sydney Morning Herald is generally reliable.	1
Taki's Magazine (Takimag, Taki's Top Drawer)		2019 1	2019	Taki's Magazine was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that it is an unreliable opinion magazine that should be avoided outside of very limited exceptions (e.g. WP:ABOUTSELF).	1
Tasnim News Agency WP:TASNIMNEWSAGENCY 📌		2024 1 2 3 4 5	2024	Tasnim News Agency was deprecated in the 2024 RfC due to being an IRGC-controlled outlet that disseminates state propaganda and conspiracy theories.	1 2
TASS (ITAR-TASS, Telegraph Agency of the Soviet Union, Information Telegraph Agency of Russia) WP:TASS 📌		2019 2022 1 2	2022	In a 2022 RfC, editors achieved a strong consensus that TASS is a biased source with respect to topics in which the Russian government may have an interest and that the source is generally unreliable for providing contentious facts in that context. Editors attained a rough consensus that TASS should not be deprecated at this time and a rough consensus that TASS is generally unreliable more broadly for facts, with the caveat that it is considered reliable for quotes of statements made by the Kremlin, the Russian State, and pro-Kremlin politicians. A previous 2019 RfC had concluded that reliability is unclear or additional considerations apply.	1 2
TechCrunch WP:TECHCRUNCH 📌		1 2 3 4 5	2025	Careful consideration should be given to whether a piece is written by staff or as a part of their blog, as well as whether the piece/writer may have a conflict of interest, and to what extent they rely on public relations material from their subject for their writing. TechCrunch may be useful for satisfying verifiability, though their articles often have too little independent analysis to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH.	1
TED WP:RSPTED 📌		1 2	2024	TED content (from ted.com or youtube.com) may be valid RS, assuming the speaker is considered reliable and an expert on what they are talking about. Content about the speaker themselves should abide by ABOUTSELF and WEIGHT. TedX content has no quality standard or editorial oversight.	1
Telesur WP:TELESUR 📌		2019 1 2	2019	Telesur was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the TV channel is a Bolivarian propaganda outlet. Many editors state that Telesur publishes false information. As a state-owned media network in a country with low press freedom, Telesur may be a primary source for the viewpoint of the Venezuelan government, although due weight should be considered. Telesur is biased or opinionated, and its statements should be attributed.	1 2
ThinkProgress		2013 1 2	2013	Discussions of ThinkProgress are dated, with the most recent in 2013. Circumstances may have changed. Some consider ThinkProgress a form of WP:NEWSBLOG, and reliable for attributed statements of opinion. Others argue that ThinkProgress is generally reliable under WP:NEWSORG, albeit with due consideration for their political leanings. ThinkProgress is generally considered a partisan source for the purposes of American politics. ThinkProgress shut down in 2019; website content is still accessible.	1
Time WP:TIMEMAGAZINE 📌 WP:RSPTIME 📌		1 2 3 4 5 A	2024	There is consensus that Time is generally reliable. Time's magazine blogs, including Techland, should be handled with the appropriate policy. Refer to WP:NEWSORG for guidance on op-eds, which should only be used with attribution.	1
The Times (The Times of London, The London Times, The Sunday Times) WP:THETIMES 📌		2022 +10	2023	The Times, including its sister paper The Sunday Times, is considered generally reliable.	1 2 3 4
The Times of Israel (ToI) WP:TIMESOFISRAEL 📌		2024 1 2 3 4 5	2024	In the 2024 RfC, there was consensus that The Times of Israel is generally reliable, although potentially biased in certain topics like the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. ToI disclaims responsibility for the contents of the blogs section (which is written by third parties) though experts' blog posts may be sometimes usable per the guidance at WP:BLOGS.	1
The Times of India (post-1950) (TOI) WP:TIMESOFINDIA 📌		2020 2024 1 2 3 4 5	2024	Additional considerations apply to articles published in The Times of India (TOI) after 1950. TOI has sometimes had a poor reputation for fact-checking and its use should be evaluated with caution. Editors should ensure that they do not use paid advertorials—which were first published in TOI in 1950 at the earliest—to verify information or establish notability. Paid advertorials may be of particular concern in topics such as entertainment. Editors should also be aware that TOI may have published at least one AI-generated article.	1 2
TMZ WP:TMZ 📌		14	2022	There is no consensus on the reliability of TMZ. Although TMZ is cited by reliable sources, most editors consider TMZ a low-quality source and prefer more reliable sources when available. Because TMZ frequently publishes articles based on rumor and speculation without named sources, it is recommended to explicitly attribute statements to TMZ if used. When TMZ is the only source for a piece of information, consider also whether the information constitutes due or undue weight, especially when the subject is a living person.	1
TorrentFreak (TF)		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8	2019	Most editors consider TorrentFreak generally reliable on topics involving file sharing. Editors note references to the website in mainstream media. The source may or may not be reliable for other topics.	1
Town and Village Guide (UK)		1 A	2024	As of 2024, there is consensus that Town and Village Guide is a directory service scraping Google Maps and is probably AI-generated. It lacks information as to its publisher, fact checking, and editorial board, making it a self-published source.	1
Townhall		1 2 3	2018	As of 2010, a few editors commented that opinion pieces in Townhall are reliable as a source for the opinion of the author of the individual piece, although they may not be reliable for unattributed statements of fact, and context will dictate whether the opinion of the author as such, meets the standard of WP:DUEWEIGHT.	1
TRT World (TRT, Türkiye Radyo ve Televizyon, Turkish Radio and Television) WP:TRT 📌		2019 1	2022	Consensus exists that TRT World is reliable for statements regarding the official views of the Turkish government but not reliable for subjects with which the Turkish government could be construed to have a conflict of interest. For other miscellaneous cases, it shall be assumed to be reliable enough.	1
The Truth About Guns (TTAG) WP:TTAG 📌		1 2 3	2019	The Truth About Guns is a group blog. There is consensus that TTAG does not have a strong reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. TTAG has promoted conspiracy theories, and does not clearly label its sponsored content. Editors agree that TTAG is biased or opinionated. Opinions in TTAG are likely to constitute undue weight.	1
TV.com		1 2 3 4 5 6	2020	TV.com was largely user-generated and generally unreliable. Some editors believe material published by its own staff may be cited. TV.com shut down in July 2021; website content is no longer accessible unless archived.	1
TV Guide		1 2 3 4 5	2024	TV Guide is considered generally reliable for television-related topics. Some editors consider TV Guide a primary source for air dates.	1 2
TV Tropes WP:RSPTVTROPES 📌		1 2 3 A	2023	TV Tropes is considered generally unreliable because it is an open wiki, which is a type of self-published source.	1
Twitter (X) WP:RSPTWITTER 📌 WP:RSPX 📌		50	2025	Twitter (rebranded to X since July 2023) is a social network. As a self-published source, it is considered generally unreliable and should be avoided unless the author is a subject-matter expert or the tweet is used for an uncontroversial self-description. In most cases, Twitter accounts should only be cited if the user's identity is confirmed in some way. Tweets that are not covered by reliable sources are likely to constitute undue weight. Twitter should never be used for third-party claims claims related to living persons.	1 1
The Unz Review WP:UNZ 📌		2021 1 2	2024	The Unz Review was deprecated by WP:SnowPro consensus in the 2021 RfC. Editors cite racist, antisemitic, pseudoscientific and fringe content. The site's extensive archive of journal reprints includes many apparent copyright violations.	1 2
Urban Dictionary WP:URBANDICTIONARY 📌		1 2 3	2020	Urban Dictionary is considered generally unreliable, because it consists solely of user-generated content.	1
U.S. News & World Report		1 2 3	2020	There is consensus that U.S. News & World Report is generally reliable.	1
Us Weekly WP:USWEEKLY 📌		1 2 3 4 5	2018	There is no consensus on the reliability of Us Weekly. It is often considered less reliable than People magazine. See also: People	1
USA Today WP:USATODAY 📌		1 2 3 4 5 6 A B	2024	There is consensus that staff-written articles on USA Today are generally reliable. Editors note the publication's robust editorial process and its centrist alignment. Some content is written by contributors with minimal editorial oversight, and is generally unreliable.	1 2
Vanity Fair WP:VANITYFAIR 📌		1 2 3 4	2021	Vanity Fair is considered generally reliable, including for popular culture topics. Some editors say it is biased or opinionated.	1
Variety WP:VARIETY 📌		1 2 3 4 5	2016	As an entertainment trade magazine, Variety is considered a reliable source in its field.	1
VDARE		2018 1	2019	VDARE was deprecated in the 2018 RfC. Editors agree that it is generally unusable as a source, although there may be rare exceptions such as in identifying its writers in an about-self fashion. Such limited instances will only be under careful and guided ("filtered") discretion.	1
Venezuelanalysis WP:VENEZUELANALYSIS 📌		2019 2023 1 A B	2023	There is consensus that Venezuelanalysis is generally unreliable. Some editors consider Venezuelanalysis a Bolivarian propaganda outlet, and most editors question its accuracy and editorial oversight. Almost all editors describe the site as biased or opinionated, so its claims should be attributed.	1
VentureBeat WP:VENTUREBEAT 📌		1 2 3 A	2025	There is no consensus on the reliability of VentureBeat. Some editors expressed concern over the site's publication of churnalism and AI-generated articles, and argued against using the site to establish notability. WikiProject Video games has classified VentureBeat as generally reliable for its coverage of video games.	1
The Verge WP:THEVERGE 📌		2018 1 2 3	2024	There is broad consensus that The Verge is a reliable source for use in articles relating to technology, science, and automobiles. Some editors question the quality of The Verge's instructional content on computer hardware. See also: Vox, Polygon (pre-2025), New York	1
Veterans Today		2019 2019 2025 1 2	2019	Due to persistent abuse, Veterans Today is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. Veterans Today was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed unanimous consensus that the site publishes fake news and antisemitic conspiracy theories. The use of Veterans Today as a reference should be generally prohibited, especially when other sources exist that are more reliable. Veterans Today should not be used for determining notability, or used as a secondary source in articles.	1 2
VGChartz		2019 +10	2019	In the 2019 RfC, editors unanimously agreed that VGChartz is generally unreliable. The site consists mainly of news articles that qualify as user-generated content. In addition, editors heavily criticize VGChartz for poor accuracy standards in its video game sales data, and its methodology page consists of wholly unverified claims. If sources that are more reliable publish video game sales data for certain regions (usually The NPD Group, Chart-Track, and/or Media Create), it is strongly advised that editors cite those sources instead.	1
Vice Media (Garage, Vice, Vice News, Motherboard) WP:VICE 📌		17	2024	There is no consensus on the reliability of Vice Media publications.	1 2 3
Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation (VOC)		1 2	2021	The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation is an American anti-communist think tank and blog, considered to be an unreliable source due to misinformation and a generally poor reputation for fact checking and accuracy.	1
The Village Voice		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9	2024	There is consensus among editors that The Village Voice is generally reliable. It is an alternative newsweekly that has received multiple Pulitzer Prizes.	1
Vogue WP:VOGUE 📌		1 2 3 4	2018	Vogue is considered generally reliable. Potentially contentious statements made by Vogue interview subjects can be attributed to the individual.	1
Voice of America (VOA, VoA) WP:RSPVOA 📌		2021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9	2024	Voice of America is an American state-owned international radio broadcaster. It is considered to be generally reliable, though some editors express concerns regarding its neutrality and editorial independence from the U.S. government.	1
Voltaire Network		2020	2020	The Voltaire Network is considered unreliable due to its affiliation with conspiracy theorist Thierry Meyssan and its republication of articles from Global Research. Editors unanimously agreed to deprecate the Voltaire Network in the 2020 RfC.	1
Vox (Recode) WP:RSPVOX 📌		1 2 3 4 5 6 7	2024	Vox is considered generally reliable. Some editors say that Vox is a partisan source in the field of politics. See also: Polygon (pre-2025), The Verge, New York	1
The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) WP:WSJ 📌		1 2 3 4 5 6 7	2024	Most editors consider The Wall Street Journal generally reliable for news. Use WP:NEWSBLOG to evaluate the newspaper's blogs, including Washington Wire. Use WP:RSOPINION for opinion pieces.	1
Washington Examiner WP:WASHINGTONEXAMINER 📌		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8	2020	There is no consensus on the reliability of the Washington Examiner, but there is consensus that it should not be used to substantiate exceptional claims. Almost all editors consider the Washington Examiner a partisan source and believe that statements from this publication should be attributed. The Washington Examiner publishes opinion columns, which should be handled by following the appropriate guideline.	1
The Washington Free Beacon (2012–2018)		2025 1 2	2025	Most editors considered the Washington Free Beacon to be generally unreliable as a source during the editorship of Matthew Continetti, particularly for material about BLPs or political topics. There was no consensus to deprecate it in a 2020 discussion, and a 2025 discussion confirmed consensus for its status as generally unreliable.	1
The Washington Free Beacon (2019–present) WP:FREEBEACON 📌		2025 1 2	2025	Most editors considered the Washington Free Beacon to have become generally reliable during the editorship of Eliana Johnson. However, some editors consider it a partisan source. All editors should be aware that the Free Beacon sometimes publishes satirical or humorous articles which should be distinguished from their usual journalistic work. Some editors found articles by Andrew Stiles (The Stiles Section) generally unreliable.	1
The Washington Post (The Post, WaPo, TWP) WP:WAPO 📌		20	2024	Most editors consider The Washington Post generally reliable. Some editors note that WP:NEWSBLOG should be used to evaluate blog posts on The Washington Post's website.	1
The Washington Times WP:WASHINGTONTIMES 📌		2021 1 2 3 4 5	2021	There is consensus that The Washington Times is a marginally reliable source for politics and science. Most editors agree that it is a partisan source. Some editors noted a history of publishing inaccurate or false information, of being slow to issue retractions or corrections, and of sometimes only doing so under the threat of legal action; a considerable minority favored deprecation on these grounds. The Washington Times is probably suitable for its mundane political coverage, although better sources should be preferred when available. The Washington Times should generally not be used for contentious claims, especially about living persons. A majority of editors regard The Washington Times as generally reliable for topics other than politics and science. Opinion columns are governed by WP:RSOPINION and WP:NEWSBLOG. Some editors observed that The Washington Times has a conflict of interest regarding the Unification movement and related topics.	1
WatchMojo WP:WATCHMOJO 📌		1 A B C	2020	WatchMojo is a site that publishes Internet videos consisting of ranking listicles. The site is considered generally unreliable due to poor fact checking and editorial oversight, and for failing to disclose its methodology.	1
Weather2Travel.com		1 2	2012	Weather2Travel is a website operated by UK-based Global Support Limited. It expressly disclaims all content as indicative only and unfit to be relied upon. Some editors expressed concerns it may have a conflict of interest by way of some commercial ties.	1
The Weekly Standard		1 2 3	2014	The Weekly Standard was considered generally reliable, but much of their published content was opinion and should be attributed as such. Most editors say this magazine was a partisan source. The Weekly Standard shut down in 2018; website content is no longer available unless archived.	1
The Western Journal (Western Journalism) WP:WESTERNJOURNAL 📌		2019 1	2019	In the 2019 RfC, there was consensus that The Western Journal is generally unreliable, but no consensus on whether The Western Journal should be deprecated. The publication's syndicated content should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher.	1
We Got This Covered WP:WEGOTTHISCOVERED 📌		1 2 3	2022	We Got This Covered is generally unreliable due to its lack of editorial oversight, publication of unsubstantiated or false rumors, speculation claimed as fact, and accepting contributions from non-staff contributors.	1
Wen Wei Po WP:WENWEIPO 📌		2020 1	2020	Wen Wei Po was deprecated in the 2020 RfC as a state-owned Hong Kong propaganda outlet that has published falsified information.	1
WhatCulture WP:WHATCULTURE 📌		1 2 3	2023	WhatCulture is considered generally unreliable. Contributors "do not need to have any relevant experience or hold any particular qualifications" and editors note a poor record of fact checking. It is listed as an unreliable source by WikiProject Professional wrestling and WikiProject Video games.	1
Who's Who (UK)		2022 1 2 3 4	2022	Who's Who (UK) is considered generally unreliable due to its poor editorial standards and history of publishing false or inaccurate information. Its content is supplied primarily by its subjects, so it should be regarded as a self-published source. See also: Marquis Who's Who.	1
WhoSampled WP:WHOSAMPLED 📌		1 2	2016	WhoSampled is almost entirely composed of user-generated content, and is a self-published source.	1
Wikidata WP:RSPWD 📌		2013 2018 1 2 3	2024	Wikidata is largely user-generated, and articles should not directly cite Wikidata as a source (just as it would be inappropriate to cite other Wikipedias' articles as sources). See also: Wikidata transcluded statements.	1
Wikidata transcluded statements WP:RSPWDTRANS 📌		2013 2018 1 2	2018	Uniquely among WMF sites, Wikidata's statements can be directly transcluded into articles; this is usually done to provide external links or infobox data. For example, more than two million external links from Wikidata are shown through the {{Authority control}} template. There has been controversy over the use of Wikidata in the English Wikipedia due to its infancy, its vandalism issues and its sourcing. While there is no consensus on whether information from Wikidata should be used at all, there is general agreement that any Wikidata statements transcluded need to be just as – or more – reliable compared to Wikipedia content. As such, Module:WikidataIB and some related modules and templates filter unsourced Wikidata statements by default; however, other modules and templates, such as Module:Wikidata, do not. See also: Wikidata (direct citations).	—
WikiLeaks WP:RSPWIKILEAKS 📌		2021 17	2024	WikiLeaks is a repository of primary source documents leaked by anonymous sources. No consensus exists on its reliability. Some editors questioned the applicability of reliability ratings to Wikileaks. Some editors believe that documents from WikiLeaks fail the verifiability policy, because WikiLeaks does not adequately authenticate them, and there are concerns regarding whether the documents are genuine or tampered. It may be appropriate to cite a document from WikiLeaks as a primary source, but only if it is discussed by a reliable source. However, linking to material that violates copyright is prohibited by WP:COPYLINK.	1
Wikinews WP:RSPWIKINEWS 📌		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9	2024	Most editors believe that Wikinews articles do not meet Wikipedia's verifiability standards. As Wikinews does not enforce a strong editorial policy, many editors consider the site equivalent to a self-published source, which is generally unreliable.	1
Wikipedia (including The Signpost) WP:RSPWP 📌		22	2024	Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source because open wikis are self-published sources. This includes articles, non-article pages, The Signpost, non-English Wikipedias, Wikipedia Books, and Wikipedia mirrors; see WP:CIRCULAR for guidance. Occasionally, inexperienced editors may unintentionally cite the Wikipedia article about a publication instead of the publication itself; in these cases, fix the citation instead of removing it. Although citing Wikipedia as a source is against policy, content can be copied between articles with proper attribution; see WP:COPYWITHIN for instructions.	1
The Wire (India)		2023 1 2 3 4 5	2023	The Wire is considered generally reliable under the news organizations guideline.	1 2 3
Wired (Wired UK)		1 2 3 4 5 6 A	2018	Wired magazine is considered generally reliable for science and technology.	1 2
WordPress.com WP:RSPWORDPRESS 📌		16	2023	WordPress.com is a blog hosting service that runs on the WordPress software. 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. WordPress.com should never be used for claims related to living persons; this includes interviews, as even those cannot be authenticated.	1
World Christian Database, World Christian Encyclopedia, and World Religion Database (WCD, WCE, WRD) WP:WCD 📌 WP:WCE 📌 WP:WRD 📌		2022 2024 1 2	2024	Additional considerations apply to the use of the World Christian Database, World Christian Encyclopedia, and World Religion Database. Editors should attribute factual information derived from the sources and they should generally not use them if other reliable sources are available. Scholars have advanced strong methodological critiques of the sources. However, they are published by Oxford University Press, Edinburgh University Press, and Brill, and they are used with caution by reliable sources, including the Pew Research Center, Oxford Handbooks, and Cambridge reference works (some postdating the methodological critiques).	1 2 3
WorldNetDaily (WND) WP:WND 📌		2018 +16	2018	WorldNetDaily was deprecated in the 2018 RfC. There is clear consensus that WorldNetDaily is not a reliable source, and that it should not be used because of its particularly poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The website is known for promoting falsehoods and conspiracy theories. Most editors consider WorldNetDaily a partisan source. WorldNetDaily's syndicated content should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher, and the citation should preferably point to the original publisher.	1 2
Worldometer (Worldometers)		1 2 3	2020	Worldometer is a self-published source and editors have questioned its accuracy and methodology. It is disallowed by WikiProject COVID-19 as a source for statistics on the COVID-19 pandemic and is considered generally unreliable for other topics.	1
World Socialist Web Site (WSWS) WP:WSWS 📌		10	2024	The World Socialist Web Site is the online news and information publication of the International Committee of the Fourth International, a Trotskyist political organisation. Most editors consider it to be reliable for the attributed opinions of its authors. There is no consensus on whether it is reliable for factual reporting. If used, it must be evaluated for due weight as it is an opinionated source. Some editors suggest that it may be more reliable for news related to labor issues.	1
TheWrap WP:THEWRAP 📌		1 2	2017	As an industry trade publication, there is consensus that TheWrap is a good source for entertainment news and media analysis. There is no consensus regarding the reliability of TheWrap's articles on other topics.	1
XBIZ		2021	2021	XBIZ is considered generally reliable for the adult industry. However, it publishes press releases/sponsored content without clearly delineating the distinction between their own journalism and the promotional content of others. Thus, editors should take care that the source is not used for content obviously or likely to be promotional.	1
Xinhua News Agency (New China News Agency) WP:XINHUA 📌		2020 1 2 3	2021	Xinhua News Agency is the official state-run press agency of the People's Republic of China. There is consensus that Xinhua is generally reliable for factual reporting except in areas where the government of China may have a reason to use it for propaganda or disinformation. Xinhua is also generally reliable for the views and positions of the Chinese government and its officials. For subjects where the Chinese government may be a stakeholder, the consensus is almost unanimous that Xinhua cannot be trusted to cover them accurately and dispassionately; some editors favour outright deprecation because of its lack of editorial independence. There is no consensus for applying any one single label to the whole of the agency. Caution should be exercised in using this source, extremely so in case of extraordinary claims on controversial subjects or biographies of living people. When in doubt, try to find better sources instead; use inline attribution if you must use Xinhua.	1 2
Yahoo! News WP:YAHOONEWS 📌		12	2024	Yahoo! News runs both original reporting and syndicated feeds of other sources. Editors have treated the original reporting as an ordinary WP:NEWSORG, and thus presumed generally reliable. Take care with syndicated content, which varies from highly reliable sources to very unreliable sources. Syndicated content should be evaluated as you would evaluate the original source. Syndicated content will have the original source's name and/or logo at the top.	1
YouTube WP:RSPYT 📌		36	2024	Most videos on YouTube are anonymous, self-published, and unverifiable, and should not be used as a reference. Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability. However, many YouTube videos from unofficial accounts are copyright violations and should not be linked from Wikipedia, according to WP:COPYLINK. See also WP:YOUTUBE and WP:VIDEOLINK. For illustrative, non-referential use, see c:Commons:YouTube files and Wikipedia:Image use policy.	1
ZDNET (pre-October 2020)		2024 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8	2024	ZDNet is considered generally reliable for technology-related articles prior to its acquisition by Red Ventures in October 2020.	1
ZDNET (October 2020–present)		2024 1 2 3	2024	ZDNet was acquired by digital marketing company Red Ventures in October 2020. There is consensus that ZDNet, along with other online properties of Red Ventures, is generally unreliable. Editors express concern that Red Ventures, as a matter of policy, uses AI-authored content on its properties in a non-transparent and unreliable manner.	1
Zero Hedge (ZeroHedge, ZH) WP:ZEROHEDGE 📌		2020 1 2 3	2020	Zero Hedge was deprecated in the 2020 RfC due to its propagation of conspiracy theories. It is a self-published blog that is biased or opinionated.	1
ZoomInfo		2020 1 2	2020	Due to persistent abuse, ZoomInfo is currently on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used.	1

Notes

↑ See also these discussions of Academia.edu: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
These discussions of ResearchGate: 1 2 3 4
These discussions of Zenodo: 1 2
↑ See also these discussions of Advameg: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 A
↑ See these discussions of Al Jazeera: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 A B
↑ See these discussions of Associated Press:1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
↑ See these discussions of BBC: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 A
↑ See also these discussions of Behind the Voice Actors: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A
↑ See these discussions of Blogger: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
↑ See also these discussions of Breitbart News: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 A
↑ See also these discussions of BuzzFeed News: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
↑ See these discussions of The Christian Science Monitor: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
↑ See these discussions of CNET: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
↑ See these discussions of CNN: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 A
↑ See also these discussions of CounterPunch: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
↑ See these discussions of The Daily Dot: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 A
↑ See also these discussions of the Daily Mail: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54
↑ See these discussions of The Daily Telegraph: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 20 21
↑ See these discussions of Dotdash Meredith: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 A
↑ See these discussions of Encyclopædia Britannica: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
↑ See also these discussions of Facebook: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
↑ See these discussions of Forbes: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A
↑ See these discussions of Forbes.com contributors: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
1 2 3 Local Fox affiliates are considered distinct from Fox News, and are covered by WP:NEWSORG.
↑ See also these discussions of Fox News (news excluding politics and science): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
↑ See also these discussions of Fox News (politics and science): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
↑ See these discussions of GameSpot: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A B C D E F G H I
↑ See these discussions of GlobalSecurity.org: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
↑ See these discussions of The Guardian: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
↑ See these discussions of The Guardian blogs: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
↑ See these discussions of Haaretz: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
↑ See these discussions of The Hill: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
↑ See these discussions of HuffPost (excluding politics): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
↑ See these discussions of HuffPost (politics): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
↑ See these discussions of HuffPost contributors: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
↑ See these discussions of IGN: 1 2 3 4 5 6 A B C D E F
↑ See also these discussions of IMDb: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 A B C D E F G
↑ See also these discussions of Business Insider: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
↑ Regarding The Hot Mic podcast, reporting by Sneider's co-host John Rocha is not considered reliable, not fulfilling any reliability criteria. See WP:MCURS
↑ See these discussions of Joshua Project: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 A B
↑ See these discussions of LinkedIn: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
↑ See also these discussions of Media Matters for America: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
↑ See these discussions of Metacritic: 1 2 A B C D E F G H
↑ See these discussions of Metro (UK): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
↑ See also these discussions of New York Post: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
↑ See also these discussions of The New York Times: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46
1 2 See also these discussions of Newsweek: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
↑ See also these discussions of peerage websites (self-published): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
↑ See also these discussions of PinkNews: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
↑ See these discussions of arXiv: 1 2 3 4 A B
These discussions of bioRxiv: 1 2
These discussions of SSRN: 1 2 3
↑ See also these discussions of Quackwatch: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 A B
↑ See these discussions of RhythmOne: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 A B
↑ See these discussions of RIA Novosti: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
A
↑ See also these discussions of Rotten Tomatoes: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 A B C D
↑ See these discussions of Salon: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
↑ See these discussions of Snopes: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
↑ See also these discussions of the Southern Poverty Law Center: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 A
↑ See these discussions of Der Spiegel: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
↑ See also these discussions of The Sun (UK): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
↑ See also these discussions of The Times: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
↑ See these discussions of TMZ: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
↑ See these discussions of Twitter: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
↑ See also these discussions of VGChartz: A B C D E F G H I J
↑ See these discussions of Vice Media: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
↑ See these discussions of The Washington Post: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
↑ See these discussions of WikiLeaks: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
↑ See these discussions of WP: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 A
↑ See these discussions of WordPress.com: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
↑ See also these discussions of WorldNetDaily: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
↑ See these discussions of World Socialist Web Site: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
↑ See these discussions of Yahoo News: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 A
↑ See also these discussions of YouTube: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 A

References

↑ "Apple Daily: Hong Kong pro-democracy paper announces closure". BBC News. June 23, 2021. Archived from the original on June 24, 2021. Retrieved June 24, 2021.
↑ Sato, Mia (July 6, 2023). "G/O Media's AI 'innovation' is off to a rocky start". The Verge. Retrieved February 27, 2024.
↑ "Ballotpedia: About". Ballotpedia. Archived from the original on November 7, 2018. Retrieved October 23, 2018.
↑ Bond, Paul (December 2, 2018). "TheBlaze and CRTV Merge to Create Conservative Media Powerhouse (Exclusive)". The Hollywood Reporter. Archived from the original on December 18, 2018. Retrieved December 23, 2018.
↑ Mitchell, Amy; Gottfried, Jeffrey; Kiley, Jocelyn; Matsa, Katerina Eva (October 21, 2014). "Media Sources: Distinct Favorites Emerge on the Left and Right". Pew Research Center. Archived from the original on October 20, 2018. Retrieved October 23, 2018.
↑ Wang, Shan (September 15, 2017). "BuzzFeed's strategy for getting content to do well on all platforms? Adaptation and a lot of A/B testing". Nieman Lab. Archived from the original on November 21, 2018. Retrieved October 23, 2018.
↑ Wang, Shan (July 18, 2018). "The investigations and reporting of BuzzFeed News – *not* BuzzFeed – are now at their own BuzzFeedNews.com". Nieman Lab. Archived from the original on November 30, 2018. Retrieved October 23, 2018.
↑ Waclawiak, Karolina (5 May 2023). "A Final Editor's Note". BuzzFeed News. Retrieved 21 June 2023.
↑ Harris, Malcolm (September 19, 2018). "The Big Secret of Celebrity Wealth (Is That No One Knows Anything)". The New York Times. Archived from the original on September 27, 2018. Retrieved September 29, 2018.
↑ Sato, Mia (2023-08-09). "CNET is deleting old articles to try to improve its Google Search ranking". The Verge. Retrieved 2023-08-10.
↑ "Our Portfolio". Digital Currency Group. Archived from the original on August 23, 2018. Retrieved November 21, 2018.
↑ "Fact Check: Is Mohammed the Most Popular Name for Newborn Boys in the Netherlands?". Snopes.com. Retrieved April 29, 2018.
↑ "Carson Didn't Find HUD Errors". FactCheck.org. April 19, 2017. Retrieved April 29, 2018.
↑ Dreyfuss, Emily (May 3, 2017). "RIP About.com". Wired. Archived from the original on August 25, 2018. Retrieved December 29, 2018.
↑ Shields, Mike (December 18, 2017). "About.com had become a web relic, so its owner blew it up – and now it's enjoying a surge in revenue". Business Insider. Archived from the original on June 25, 2018. Retrieved December 29, 2018.
↑ "Contribute – Find A Grave". www.findagrave.com. Archived from the original on July 31, 2018. Retrieved July 30, 2018.
↑ Davis, Wes (July 8, 2023). "Gizmodo's staff isn't happy about G/O Media's AI-generated content". The Verge. Retrieved February 27, 2024.
↑ Zadrozny, Brandy; Ortiz, Erik (2024-11-14). "The Onion wins Alex Jones' Infowars in bankruptcy auction". NBC News. Retrieved 2024-11-14.
↑ Gold, Hadas (2024-12-11). "Judge blocks The Onion's purchase of Alex Jones' Infowars". CNN. Retrieved 2024-12-11.
↑ Vincent, James (May 7, 2021). "LiveLeak, the internet's font of gore and violence, has shut down". The Verge. Archived from the original on May 15, 2021. Retrieved May 15, 2021.
↑ See https://kanalregister.hkdir.no/publiseringskanaler/KanalForlagInfo.action?id=26778 (the publisher's summary page) and click on "Vis [+]" in "Assosierte tidsskrift" line to see the list and their ratings. As of February 2024, 13 (5.2%) of the 250 journals listed were rated X (under review) and 11 (4.4%) were rated 0 (unsuitable for scholarly publications, although they do not label them as predatory per se).]
↑ Plunkett, Luke (December 5, 2019). "RIP Gamerankings.com". Kotaku. G/O Media. Retrieved December 6, 2019.
↑ "GameRankings Shutting down". Archived from the original on 2019-12-04.
↑ McAloon, Alissa (December 5, 2019). "Review aggregator site GameRankings is shutting down". Gamasutra. Retrieved December 5, 2019.
↑ "Iran's Press TV: Broadcasting Anti-Semitism to the English-Speaking World" (PDF). Anti-Defamation League. October 17, 2013. Archived (PDF) from the original on January 3, 2019. Retrieved August 8, 2018.
↑ MacFarquhar, Neil (August 28, 2016). "A Powerful Russian Weapon: The Spread of False Stories". The New York Times. Archived from the original on February 21, 2017. Retrieved August 29, 2016.
↑ Carless, Simon (June 23, 2008). "Analysis: What VGChartz Does (And Doesn't) Do For The Game Biz". Game Developer. Retrieved October 3, 2014.
↑ "Can we trust Wikipedia? 1.4 billion people can't be wrong". The Independent. February 19, 2018. Archived from the original on February 11, 2019. Retrieved February 22, 2019.

[1] See also these discussions of Academia.edu: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
These discussions of ResearchGate: 1 2 3 4
These discussions of Zenodo: 1 2

[2] See also these discussions of Advameg: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 A

[3] See these discussions of Al Jazeera: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 A B

[5] See these discussions of Associated Press:1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

[8] See these discussions of BBC: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 A

[9] See also these discussions of Behind the Voice Actors: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A

[11] See these discussions of Blogger: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

[12] See also these discussions of Breitbart News: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 A

[15] See also these discussions of BuzzFeed News: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

[19] See these discussions of The Christian Science Monitor: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

[20] See these discussions of CNET: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

[22] See these discussions of CNN: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 A

[24] See also these discussions of CounterPunch: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

[25] See these discussions of The Daily Dot: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 A

[26] See also these discussions of the Daily Mail: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54

[27] See these discussions of The Daily Telegraph: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 20 21

[30] See these discussions of Dotdash Meredith: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 A

[33] See these discussions of Encyclopædia Britannica: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

[34] See also these discussions of Facebook: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

[36] See these discussions of Forbes: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A

[37] See these discussions of Forbes.com contributors: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

[Fox_News-38] 1 2 3 Local Fox affiliates are considered distinct from Fox News, and are covered by WP:NEWSORG.

[39] See also these discussions of Fox News (news excluding politics and science): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

[40] See also these discussions of Fox News (politics and science): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

[41] See these discussions of GameSpot: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A B C D E F G H I

[43] See these discussions of GlobalSecurity.org: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

[44] See these discussions of The Guardian: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

[45] See these discussions of The Guardian blogs: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

[46] See these discussions of Haaretz: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

[47] See these discussions of The Hill: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

[48] See these discussions of HuffPost (excluding politics): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

[49] See these discussions of HuffPost (politics): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

[50] See these discussions of HuffPost contributors: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

[51] See these discussions of IGN: 1 2 3 4 5 6 A B C D E F

[52] See also these discussions of IMDb: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 A B C D E F G

[55] See also these discussions of Business Insider: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

[56] Regarding The Hot Mic podcast, reporting by Sneider's co-host John Rocha is not considered reliable, not fulfilling any reliability criteria. See WP:MCURS

[57] See these discussions of Joshua Project: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 A B

[58] See these discussions of LinkedIn: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

[61] See also these discussions of Media Matters for America: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

[62] See these discussions of Metacritic: 1 2 A B C D E F G H

[66] See these discussions of Metro (UK): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

[67] See also these discussions of New York Post: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

[68] See also these discussions of The New York Times: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46

[Newsweek-69] 1 2 See also these discussions of Newsweek: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

[70] See also these discussions of peerage websites (self-published): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

[71] See also these discussions of PinkNews: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

[72] See these discussions of arXiv: 1 2 3 4 A B
These discussions of bioRxiv: 1 2
These discussions of SSRN: 1 2 3

[74] See also these discussions of Quackwatch: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 A B

[75] See these discussions of RhythmOne: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 A B

[76] See these discussions of RIA Novosti: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
A

[77] See also these discussions of Rotten Tomatoes: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 A B C D

[78] See these discussions of Salon: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

[79] See these discussions of Snopes: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

[80] See also these discussions of the Southern Poverty Law Center: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 A

[81] See these discussions of Der Spiegel: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

[83] See also these discussions of The Sun (UK): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

[84] See also these discussions of The Times: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

[85] See these discussions of TMZ: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

[86] See these discussions of Twitter: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

[87] See also these discussions of VGChartz: A B C D E F G H I J

[89] See these discussions of Vice Media: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

[90] See these discussions of The Washington Post: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

[91] See these discussions of WikiLeaks: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

[92] See these discussions of WP: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 A

[94] See these discussions of WordPress.com: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

[95] See also these discussions of WorldNetDaily: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

[96] See these discussions of World Socialist Web Site: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

[97] See these discussions of Yahoo News: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 A

[98] See also these discussions of YouTube: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 A

[4] "Apple Daily: Hong Kong pro-democracy paper announces closure". BBC News. June 23, 2021. Archived from the original on June 24, 2021. Retrieved June 24, 2021.

[6] Sato, Mia (July 6, 2023). "G/O Media's AI 'innovation' is off to a rocky start". The Verge. Retrieved February 27, 2024.

[7] "Ballotpedia: About". Ballotpedia. Archived from the original on November 7, 2018. Retrieved October 23, 2018.

[10] Bond, Paul (December 2, 2018). "TheBlaze and CRTV Merge to Create Conservative Media Powerhouse (Exclusive)". The Hollywood Reporter. Archived from the original on December 18, 2018. Retrieved December 23, 2018.

[13] Mitchell, Amy; Gottfried, Jeffrey; Kiley, Jocelyn; Matsa, Katerina Eva (October 21, 2014). "Media Sources: Distinct Favorites Emerge on the Left and Right". Pew Research Center. Archived from the original on October 20, 2018. Retrieved October 23, 2018.

[14] Wang, Shan (September 15, 2017). "BuzzFeed's strategy for getting content to do well on all platforms? Adaptation and a lot of A/B testing". Nieman Lab. Archived from the original on November 21, 2018. Retrieved October 23, 2018.

[16] Wang, Shan (July 18, 2018). "The investigations and reporting of BuzzFeed News – *not* BuzzFeed – are now at their own BuzzFeedNews.com". Nieman Lab. Archived from the original on November 30, 2018. Retrieved October 23, 2018.

[17] Waclawiak, Karolina (5 May 2023). "A Final Editor's Note". BuzzFeed News. Retrieved 21 June 2023.

[18] Harris, Malcolm (September 19, 2018). "The Big Secret of Celebrity Wealth (Is That No One Knows Anything)". The New York Times. Archived from the original on September 27, 2018. Retrieved September 29, 2018.

[21] Sato, Mia (2023-08-09). "CNET is deleting old articles to try to improve its Google Search ranking". The Verge. Retrieved 2023-08-10.

[23] "Our Portfolio". Digital Currency Group. Archived from the original on August 23, 2018. Retrieved November 21, 2018.

[28] "Fact Check: Is Mohammed the Most Popular Name for Newborn Boys in the Netherlands?". Snopes.com. Retrieved April 29, 2018.

[29] "Carson Didn't Find HUD Errors". FactCheck.org. April 19, 2017. Retrieved April 29, 2018.

[31] Dreyfuss, Emily (May 3, 2017). "RIP About.com". Wired. Archived from the original on August 25, 2018. Retrieved December 29, 2018.

[32] Shields, Mike (December 18, 2017). "About.com had become a web relic, so its owner blew it up – and now it's enjoying a surge in revenue". Business Insider. Archived from the original on June 25, 2018. Retrieved December 29, 2018.

[35] "Contribute – Find A Grave". www.findagrave.com. Archived from the original on July 31, 2018. Retrieved July 30, 2018.

[42] Davis, Wes (July 8, 2023). "Gizmodo's staff isn't happy about G/O Media's AI-generated content". The Verge. Retrieved February 27, 2024.

[53] Zadrozny, Brandy; Ortiz, Erik (2024-11-14). "The Onion wins Alex Jones' Infowars in bankruptcy auction". NBC News. Retrieved 2024-11-14.

[54] Gold, Hadas (2024-12-11). "Judge blocks The Onion's purchase of Alex Jones' Infowars". CNN. Retrieved 2024-12-11.

[59] Vincent, James (May 7, 2021). "LiveLeak, the internet's font of gore and violence, has shut down". The Verge. Archived from the original on May 15, 2021. Retrieved May 15, 2021.

[60] See https://kanalregister.hkdir.no/publiseringskanaler/KanalForlagInfo.action?id=26778 (the publisher's summary page) and click on "Vis [+]" in "Assosierte tidsskrift" line to see the list and their ratings. As of February 2024, 13 (5.2%) of the 250 journals listed were rated X (under review) and 11 (4.4%) were rated 0 (unsuitable for scholarly publications, although they do not label them as predatory per se).]

[63] Plunkett, Luke (December 5, 2019). "RIP Gamerankings.com". Kotaku. G/O Media. Retrieved December 6, 2019.

[64] "GameRankings Shutting down". Archived from the original on 2019-12-04.

[65] McAloon, Alissa (December 5, 2019). "Review aggregator site GameRankings is shutting down". Gamasutra. Retrieved December 5, 2019.

[ADL2013-73] "Iran's Press TV: Broadcasting Anti-Semitism to the English-Speaking World" (PDF). Anti-Defamation League. October 17, 2013. Archived (PDF) from the original on January 3, 2019. Retrieved August 8, 2018.

[MacFarquhar-82] MacFarquhar, Neil (August 28, 2016). "A Powerful Russian Weapon: The Spread of False Stories". The New York Times. Archived from the original on February 21, 2017. Retrieved August 29, 2016.

[88] Carless, Simon (June 23, 2008). "Analysis: What VGChartz Does (And Doesn't) Do For The Game Biz". Game Developer. Retrieved October 3, 2014.

[93] "Can we trust Wikipedia? 1.4 billion people can't be wrong". The Independent. February 19, 2018. Archived from the original on February 11, 2019. Retrieved February 22, 2019.