Wikipedia:Vaccine safety/Perennial sources
 | It's important to note that: 1) Many good sources will not appear on this list; and 2) many bad sources that are on this list can still be carefully used in a specific, appropriate context. This list is a tool that empowers reports and alerts for making decisions based on analysis and discretion. It is not a whitelist/blacklist. |
What is this page?
Perennial sources are sources that appear frequently on Wikipedia and are often the subject of debate. This page, the vaccine safety perennial sources list, works to assess sources specifically in the context of their reliability for information about vaccines.
This table helps the bot-updated usage report by providing a classification of sources (and their domain names) by reliability.
How do I add to it?
Discuss sources on the project talk page. In particular, see the list of Unrated Sources and see which ones can be triaged into this list.
Table
Content Type: one or more of
- advocacy, blog, book, community, editable, government, journal, news, opinion, press, research, social, tabloid, tv/radio
Source: organization or source
Status: one or more of
- 🔹 VSN+ (member of VSN), ✅ Reliable, ⚠️ Mixed, 🚫 Unreliable, 🛑 Conspiracy, ✖️ Blocked, ⏳️ Stale/In Progress
- Member: part of this work, a group defining assessments
- Blocked: external links to the site are blocked, due to abuse
Discussions:
- Forums: which forums assessed the source
- Last: date (year) of last assessment
- Comment: reason for assessment, other comments
URL: root web domains
Uses: search for references to these sites in articles
Tools and tags
User scripts
See Wikipedia:Vaccine safety/Tips#User scripts
Expanding the vocabulary of source assessments
Related vocabularies to include, merge with, or reference:
- Unreliable.js categories: preprint or general unreviewed repo, reliability varies w/ contributor + topic, borderline unreliable, generally unreliable, sponsored content, predatory, blacklisted, misleading journal metric
- CiteUnseen vocab influenced this, but can these be fully merged? Currently there is fuzziness around six CU terms: "reliability varies", "general unreviewed", "borderline/generally unreliable", "sponsored", "opinion", "tabloid"