This is an explanatory essay about the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources guideline. This page provides additional information about concepts in the page(s) it supplements. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.

Shortcuts WP:RSP WP:RS/P

This page in a nutshell: This is a list of repeatedly discussed sources, collected and summarized for convenience. Consensus can change, and context matters tremendously when determining how to use this list.

This is a list of sources whose reliability and use on Wikipedia are frequently discussed. This list attempts to summarize prior consensus and consolidate links to the most in-depth and recent discussions from the reliable sources noticeboard. Context matters tremendously, and some sources may or may not be suitable for certain uses depending on the situation. When in doubt, defer to the linked discussions for detailed information on a source and its use. Consensus can change, and if more recent discussions considering new evidence or argument reaches a different consensus, this list should be updated to reflect those changes.

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

Refer to the legend for definitions of the icons in the list, but note that the discussion summaries provide more specific guidance on sources than the icons in the "Status" column. When in doubt, defer to the linked discussions, which provide in-depth arguments on when it is appropriate to use a source.

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

Consider also the weight of the claim you are supporting, which will greatly affect the reliability of the source needed, with mundane uncontroversial details among the lowest burden of proof, and medical content or that related to biographies of living persons among the highest.

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

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

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

Page Template:Identifying reliable sources/styles.css has no content.

Source	Status (legend)	Discussions			Uses
		List	Last	Summary
AlterNet		1 2 3 4	2018	There is consensus that AlterNet is a generally unreliable source. Editors consider AlterNet a partisan source, and its statements should be properly 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.com		1 2 3 4 5	2017	User reviews on Amazon.com are anonymous, self-published, and unverifiable, and should not be used at all. Amazon.com is a reliable source for basic information about a work (such as release date, ISBN, etc.), although it is unnecessary to cite Amazon.com when the work itself may serve as a source for that information (e.g., authors' names and ISBNs). Future release dates may be unreliable.	1
AnandTech		1 2	2018	AnandTech is considered a generally reliable source for technology-related articles.	1
Ancestry.com		1 2 3 4	2015	Ancestry.com hosts a huge database of primary source documents including marriage and census records. Some of these sources may be usable in certain circumstances, but secondary sources, where available, are usually preferred. Ancestry.com also hosts a huge amount of user-submitted content, none of which is reliable.	1
Ars Technica		1 2	2012	Ars Technica is considered a generally reliable source for science- and technology-related articles.	1
Associated Press (AP)		1 2 3 4 5 6	2018	The Associated Press is a news agency. There is consensus that the Associated Press is generally reliable. Syndicated reports from the Associated Press that are published in other sources are also considered generally reliable.	1   2
The A.V. Club		1 2 3 A	2014	The A.V. Club is considered a generally reliable source for film, music and TV reviews.	1
Baidu Baike		1 2 3 4	2018	Baidu Baike is considered generally unreliable because it is similar to an open wiki, which is a type of self-published source. Although edits are reviewed by Baidu administrators before they are published, most editors believe the editorial standards of Baidu Baike to be very low, and do not see any evidence of fact-checking. The Baidu 10 Mythical Creatures kuso originated from Baidu Baike.	1   2
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]	1
BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation)		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12	2017	BBC is considered a generally reliable source. 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
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.[2]	1   2
Breitbart News		2018 1 2 3	2018	Due to persistent abuse, Breitbart News is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. The site has published a number of falsehoods, conspiracy theories,[8] and intentionally misleading stories.[11] The 2018 RfC showed a very clear consensus that Breitbart News should be deprecated in the same way as the Daily Mail. This does not mean Breitbart News can no longer be used, but it should not be used, ever, as a reference for facts, due to its unreliability. It can still be used as a primary source when attributing opinion/viewpoint/commentary.	1
Business Insider (Insider, Markets Insider, Tech Insider)		1 2 3 4 5 6	2015	There is no consensus on the reliability of Business Insider. In 2015, Business Insider's disclaimer stated: "You should be skeptical of any information on Business Insider, because it may be wrong."[12] The site's syndicated content, which may not be clearly marked, should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher.	1   2
BuzzFeed		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8	2018	Editors find the quality of BuzzFeed articles to be highly inconsistent. A 2014 study from the Pew Research Center found BuzzFeed to be the least trusted news source in America.[13] BuzzFeed may use A/B testing for new articles, which may cause article content to change.[14] BuzzFeed operates a separate news division, BuzzFeed News, which has higher editorial standards and is now hosted on a different website. See also the entry for BuzzFeed News.	1
BuzzFeed News		1 2 3 4 5 6 7	2018	There is consensus that BuzzFeed News is a generally reliable source. BuzzFeed News now operates separately from BuzzFeed, and most news content originally hosted on BuzzFeed was moved to the BuzzFeed News website in 2018.[15] The site's opinion pieces should be handled with WP:RSOPINION. See also the entry for BuzzFeed.	1
CelebrityNetWorth		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9	2018	There is consensus that CelebrityNetWorth is a generally unreliable source. CelebrityNetWorth does not disclose its methodology, and its accuracy has been criticized by The New York Times.[16]	1
The Christian Science Monitor (CS Monitor)		+20[a]	2016	The Christian Science Monitor is considered a generally reliable source for news.	1
CNET		+16[b]	2015	CNET is considered a generally reliable source for technology-related articles.	1
CoinDesk		2018 1 2 3	2018	There is no consensus on the reliability of CoinDesk. However, there is consensus that CoinDesk should not be used to establish notability for article topics. Be cautious when using CoinDesk to avoid adding promotional content into articles. Check CoinDesk articles for conflict of interest disclosures, and verify whether their parent company (Digital Currency Group) has an ownership stake in a company covered by CoinDesk.[17]	1
CounterPunch		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8	2016	There is no consensus regarding the reliability of CounterPunch. As a biased or opinionated source, its statements should be properly attributed.	1
The Daily Beast		1 2	2018	Past discussions regarding The Daily Beast are lacking in depth. Multiple users have expressed the opinion that it is generally reliable, citing a history of editorial oversight and the leadership of those such as Tina Brown. However, it was also described as "largely an opinion piece aggregator", for which special care must be taken for use in supporting controversial statements of fact related to biographies of living persons.	1
The Daily Caller		2018 1 2 3 4 5	2018	A number of editors indicated that The Daily Caller is a partisan source with regard to United States politics and that their statements on this topic should be attributed properly. Earlier discussion leaned more toward consideration of The Daily Caller as a reliable source, while later discussion leaned more toward unreliability. The RfC in 2018 was withdrawn.	1
The Daily Dot		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 A	2018	The Daily Dot is considered a generally reliable source for Internet culture.	1
Daily Express		1 2 3	2018	The Daily Express is a tabloid with a number of similarities to the Daily Mail.	1
Daily Kos		1 2	2017	There is no consensus about the reliability of the Daily Kos. Some content published on its website is user-submitted and are thus considered unreliable. Some editors indicated that the Daily Kos is a partisan source for United States politics.	1
Daily Mail (MailOnline)		2017  2018 +33[c]	2018	The Daily Mail was deprecated in the 2017 RfC. There is consensus that the Daily Mail (including its online version, MailOnline) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles. Some editors note that the source may be used in rare cases where the newspaper itself is involved. The restriction is often incorrectly interpreted as a "ban" on the Daily Mail.	1
Daily Mirror		1 2 3	2018	There is no consensus about the reliability of the Daily Mirror. Some editors criticize the tabloid for gossip and sensationalism, while others see it favourably in comparison to the Daily Mail or The Sun.	1
Daily Star (United Kingdom)		1 2 3 4	2018	The Daily Star is a tabloid that is generally considered less reliable than the Daily Mail.	1
The Daily Telegraph (The Telegraph)		+15[d]	2018	There is a consensus that The Daily Telegraph (also known as The Telegraph) is a generally reliable source. Some editors believe that The Daily Telegraph is a biased or opinionated source for politics.	1
Deadline Hollywood		1 2 3	2011	Deadline Hollywood is considered a generally reliable source for entertainment-related articles.	1   2
Democracy Now!		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 properly attributed. Syndicated content published by Democracy Now! should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher.	1
Deseret News		1 2 3	2016	The Deseret News is considered a generally reliable source 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 properly 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
Discogs		1 2 3 4	2018	The content on Discogs is user-submitted, and is therefore not considered a reliable source.[18]	1
The Economist		1 2 3 4	2018	Most editors consider The Economist a generally reliable source. The Economist publishes magazine blogs and opinion pieces, which should be handled with the respective guidelines.	1
The Electronic Intifada (EI)		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8	2018	There is consensus that The Electronic Intifada is generally unreliable with respect to its reputation for accuracy, fact-checking, and error-correction. Almost all editors consider The Electronic Intifada a biased and opinionated source, so their statements should be properly attributed.	1
Entertainment Weekly		+22[e]	2018	Entertainment Weekly is considered a generally reliable source for entertainment-related articles. There is no consensus on whether it is generally reliable for other topics.	1
Epoch Times		1 2 3 4 5	2018	There is no consensus about the reliability of the Epoch Times. Most editors classify the Epoch Times as an advocacy group for the Falun Gong, and consider the publication a biased or opinionated source whose statements should be properly attributed. Some editors question the publication's suitability when assessing the notability of controversial issues, and caution not to provide undue weight to this source.	1
Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR)		2010 1 2 3 4 5	2014	There is no consensus about 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 properly attributed and generally treated as opinions.	1
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. When using primary source documents from FamilySearch, follow WP:BLPPRIMARY and avoid interpreting them with original research.	1
Famous Birthdays		1 2 3 4	2018	There is consensus that Famous Birthdays is a generally unreliable source. Famous Birthdays does not provide sources for its content, and does not claim to have an editorial team or perform fact-checking.	1
Find a Grave		1 2 3 4	2016	The content on Find a Grave is user-submitted, and is therefore not considered a reliable source.[19] Links to Find a Grave may sometimes be included in the external links section of articles, when the site offers valuable additional content, such as images not permitted for use on Wikipedia. Use care that the Find a Grave page does not itself contain prohibited content, such as copyright violations.	1
Forbes		1 2 3 4 5	2018	Forbes and Forbes.com include articles written by their staff, which are written with editorial oversight, and are generally reliable. Forbes also publishes various "top" lists which can be referenced in articles. See also the entry for Forbes.com contributors.	1
Forbes.com contributors		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8	2018	Most content on Forbes.com is written by contributors with minimal editorial oversight, and is generally unreliable. Editors show consensus for treating Forbes.com contributor articles as opinion pieces or self-published sources. Check the byline to determine whether an article is written by "Forbes Staff" or a "Contributor". See also the entry for Forbes.	1
Fox News		2010  2018  2018 +10[f]	2018	Editors show consensus that news reports from Fox News are generally reliable. The first RfC in 2010 concluded: "Consensus is that while Fox may not always be reliable it is a Reliable Source", and pointed to the WP:NEWSORG guideline. The second RfC was withdrawn, and the third RfC was closed without extended discussion. Most editors consider Fox News a partisan news organization, and defer to the respective guidelines for these types of sources. Editors are advised to exercise caution when using Fox News as a source for political topics, and to properly attribute statements of opinion. See also the entry for Fox News talk shows.	1
Fox News talk shows		2010 1 2 3 4	2018	Content from Fox News talk shows, including Hannity and Tucker Carlson Tonight, are equivalent to opinion pieces and should be handled with the appropriate guideline. Statements from these shows should be properly attributed. See also the entry for Fox News.	1
Geni.com		1 2 3 4	2018	Geni.com is considered generally unreliable because it is an open wiki, which is a type of self-published source. Primary source documents from Geni.com may be usable under WP:BLPPRIMARY to support reliable secondary sources, but avoid interpreting them with original research.	1
Goodreads		1 2	2018	Goodreads is a social cataloging site comprised of user-generated content. As a self-published source, Goodreads is considered generally unreliable.	1
The Guardian (The Manchester Guardian, The Observer)		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11	2016	There is consensus that The Guardian is a generally reliable source. Some editors believe The Guardian is a biased or opinionated source for politics. See also the entry for The Guardian blogs.	1   2
The Guardian blogs		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8	2016	Most editors assert that The Guardian blogs should be treated as newspaper blogs or opinion pieces due to reduced editorial oversight. Check the bottom of the article for a "blogposts" tag to determine whether the page is a blog post or a non-blog article. See also the entry for The Guardian.	1   2
Hope not Hate (Searchlight)		2018 1 2 3 4	2018	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 properly attributed.	1   2
HuffPost (The Huffington Post)		+15[g]	2018	There is no consensus on the reliability of HuffPost. As HuffPost is a newer publication, some editors prefer to use reliable sources with more established reputations. Some editors believe the site reports with a political slant, which makes it a biased or opinionated source. HuffPost's syndicated content should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher. See also the entry for HuffPost contributors.	1   2
HuffPost contributors		+17[h]	2018	HuffPost includes content written by contributors with minimal editorial oversight. These contributors generally do not have a reputation for fact-checking, and most editors criticize the quality of their content. Editors show consensus for treating HuffPost contributor articles as opinion pieces or self-published sources. In 2018, HuffPost discontinued its contributor platform, but old contributor articles are still online.[20] Check the byline to determine whether an article is written by a staff member or a "Contributor" (also referred to as an "Editorial Partner"). See also the entry for HuffPost.	1
IMDb (Internet Movie Database)		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12	2015	The content on IMDb is user-submitted, and the site is therefore considered unreliable by the majority of editors. Some have argued that certain content on the site is reviewed by staff, although there is no broad agreement as to whether this constitutes bona fide fact checking, or what portions of the site, if any, should be considered reliable. A number of editors have pointed out that IMDb content has been copied from other sites, including Wikipedia, and that there have been a number of notable hoaxes in the past. The use of IMDb as an external link is generally considered appropriate (see also WP:ELPEREN).	1
Independent Journal Review		1 2	2018	There is no consensus about the reliability of the Independent Journal Review.	1
InfoWars		2018 1	2018	Due to persistent abuse, InfoWars is on both the spam blacklist and the Wikimedia global spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. InfoWars is a conspiracy theorist and fake news website.[33] InfoWars was deprecated in the 2018 RfC. The use of InfoWars as a reference should be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. InfoWars should not be used for determining notability, or used as a secondary source in articles.	1   2   3
JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association)		1 2	2018	JAMA is a peer-reviewed medical journal published by the American Medical Association. It is considered a generally reliable source. Opinion pieces from JAMA, including articles from The Jama Forum, are subject to WP:RSOPINION and might not qualify under WP:MEDRS.	1
Know Your Meme		1 2 3 4	2013	Know Your Meme "submissions" are user-generated content and thus are generally unreliable. There is no consensus on the reliability of their video series and "confirmed" entries.	1
Los Angeles Times		1 2 3 4 5 6	2016	Most editors consider Los Angeles Times a generally reliable source. Refer to WP:NEWSBLOG for the newspaper's blog.	1
Media Matters for America		2010 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10	2018	There is no consensus about the reliability of Media Matters for America. As a biased or opinionated source, their statements should be properly attributed.	1
Media Research Center (Newsbusters)		2010 1 2 3	2017	There is no consensus about the reliability of Media Research Center publications, including Newsbusters. As a biased or opinionated source, their statements should be properly attributed.	1   2   3   4
Metro (British newspaper)		1 2 3 4 5 6 7	2017	The reliability of Metro has been compared to that of the Daily Mail and other British tabloids.	1   2
Mother Jones		1 2 3 4	2017	There is consensus that Mother Jones is a generally reliable source. Almost all editors consider Mother Jones a biased source, so uses may need to be attributed. Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article.	1
National Enquirer		1 2 3 4 5 6	2017	The National Enquirer is a supermarket tabloid that is generally considered an unreliable source.	1
National Review (NR)		1 2 3 4 5 6	2016	There is no consensus on the reliability of National Review. Most editors consider National Review a partisan source whose statements should be properly 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
New York Daily News (Illustrated Daily News)		1 2 3	2017	There is no consensus regarding the reliability of the New York Daily News. The New York Daily News is a tabloid newspaper that publishes tabloid journalism.	1
New York Post (New York Evening Post)		1 2 3	2015	There is no consensus regarding the reliability of the New York Post. The New York Post is a tabloid newspaper with high circulation, and most editors prefer more reliable sources when available.	1
The New York Times		2018  2018 +29[i]	2018	Most editors consider The New York Times a generally reliable source. 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 first 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. The second 2018 RfC was closed without extended discussion.	1
The New Yorker		1 2	2011	There is consensus that The New Yorker is a generally reliable source. Editors note the publication's robust fact-checking process.	1
Newsmax		1 2	2013	Discussions regarding Newsmax are dated, with the most recent occurring in 2013. Circumstances may have changed. Discussions are also lacking in depth, and in focus on evaluating this source specifically. Newsmax has been cited in discussions of other sources as a low benchmark for a partisan outlet with regard to US politics, and for a propensity for comparatively fringe viewpoints.	1
Newsweek		1 2 3 4	2016	There is consensus that Newsweek is a generally reliable source. Blogs under Newsweek, including The Gaggle, should be handled with the WP:NEWSBLOG policy.	1
The Next Web		1 2 3	2018	There is no consensus on the reliability of The Next Web. The 2014 and 2016 discussions considered TNW reliable, while the 2018 discussion leaned towards unreliability.	1
NNDB (Notable Names Database)		1 2 3 4	2013	NNDB is a biographical database operated by Soylent Communications, the parent company of shock site Rotten.com. There is consensus that NNDB is generally unreliable. 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 affected pages circular sources.	1
Occupy Democrats		2018	2018	In the 2018 RfC, there was a clear consensus to deprecate Occupy Democrats as a source a la the Daily Mail. As with Breitbart News, this does not mean it cannot ever be used on Wikipedia; it means it cannot be used as a reference for facts. It can still be used as a primary source for attributing opinions, viewpoints, and the like.	1
People		2013 1 2 3 4	2014	There is a consensus that People magazine can be a reliable source in biographies of living persons, but the magazine should not be used for contentious facts.	1
Pew Research Center		1 2 3 4	2014	There is a consensus that the Pew Research Center is a generally reliable source.	1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8
Playboy		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8	2015	There is consensus that Playboy is a generally reliable source. Editors note the publication's reputation for high-quality interviews and fact-checking.	1
PolitiFact		2016	2016	PolitiFact is a reliable source for reporting the veracity of statements made by political candidates. PolitiFact is a reliable source for reporting the percentage of false statements made by a political candidate (of the statements checked by PolitiFact), provided that attribution is given, as a primary source.	1
Press TV		1 2 3 4	2015	There is no consensus about the reliability of Press TV. As a biased or opinionated source, its statements should be properly attributed. Like other state-run media in countries with low press freedom, it may be reliable for uncontroversial statements of fact, or for describing the viewpoint of the Iranian government. Press TV is particularly known for promoting anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, including Holocaust denial.[34]	1
Quackwatch		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A B	2013	Quackwatch is a self-published source written by a subject-matter expert. Many editors believe uses of Quackwatch should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and some editors say its statements should be attributed. A 2007 Arbitration Committee finding describes Quackwatch as a "partisan site". As it is a tertiary source, 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
Rate Your Music (RYM, Sonemic, Cinemos, Glitchwave)		1 A	2016	The content on Rate Your Music is user-submitted, and is therefore not considered a reliable source.	1
The Register		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 A	2017	The Register is considered a generally reliable source for technology-related articles.	1
Reuters		+64[j]	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
Rolling Stone		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8	2015	There is consensus that Rolling Stone is a generally reliable source. Rolling Stone's opinion pieces and reviews, as well as any contentious statements regarding living persons, should only be used with proper 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. Some editors assert that Rolling Stone is a partisan source in the field of politics, and that their statements in this field should also be attributed.	1
RT (Russia Today)		1 2 3 4 5	2017	There is no consensus about the reliability of RT (formerly Russia Today). Well-established news outlets are normally considered reliable for statements of fact. However, RT is frequently described as a mouthpiece of the Russian government that engages in propaganda and disinformation,[35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43] including the promotion of conspiracy theories.[44][45][46][47] It is not generally reliable for topics that are controversial or related to international politics. The only RSN discussion that was formally closed (the third link to the left) discussed whether it was acceptable in more general circumstances and found no consensus.[48]	1
Salon		1 2 3	2018	There is no consensus about the reliability of Salon. It is generally regarded as an opinion source.	1
The Skeptic's Dictionary		1 2 3	2008	The Skeptic's Dictionary is generally considered a reliable source. Attribution may be necessary. In some cases, it's preferable to cite the sources cited by The Skeptic's Dictionary. As it often covers fringe material, parity of sources may be relevant.	1
Snopes.com		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12	2018	Snopes.com is generally considered a reliable source. Attribution may be necessary.	1
Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13	2018	The Southern Poverty Law Center is generally considered a reliable source on far-right politics. As an advocacy group, the Southern Poverty Law Center is a biased and opinionated source. The organization's views, especially when labeling hate groups, should be properly attributed per WP:RSOPINION.	1
The Spectator		1 2 3 4	2018	Most editors consider The Spectator (not to be confused with the unrelated American Spectator) to be a generally reliable source. Use WP:NEWSBLOG to evaluate the magazine's blogs and WP:RSOPINION for opinion pieces. The magazine is usually considered a partisan source with regards to UK politics.	1
The Sun (United Kingdom)		2018 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8	2018	Editors consider The Sun a sensationalist tabloid, and often compare the publication unfavourably to the Daily Mail.	1
TechCrunch		1 2 3 4 5	2018	Careful consideration should be given to whether a piece is written by staff or as a part of their blog, as well as whether the piece/writer may have a conflict of interest, and to what extent they rely on public relations material from their subject for their writing. TechCrunch may be useful for satisfying WP:V, but may be less useful for purpose of determining WP:N.	1
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
ThinkProgress		2013 1	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 a generally reliable source under WP:NEWSORG, albeit with due consideration for their political leanings. ThinkProgress is generally considered a partisan source for the purposes of US politics.	1
Time		1 2 3 4	2012	There is consensus that Time is a generally reliable source. Time's magazine blogs, including Techland, should be handled with the appropriate policy.	1
TMZ		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13	2016	There is no consensus about 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 on rumors and speculation without named authors, it is recommended to properly attribute statements from TMZ. When TMZ is the only source for a piece of information, consider whether the information constitutes due or undue weight, especially when the subject is a living person.	1
TorrentFreak		1 2 3 4 5 6 7	2016	Most editors consider TorrentFreak to be a generally reliable source 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
Townhall		1 2	2010	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
Us Weekly		1 2 3 4 5	2018	There is no consensus about the reliability of Us Weekly. It is often considered less reliable than People magazine.	1
Variety		1 2 3 4 5	2016	As an entertainment trade magazine, Variety is considered a reliable source in its field.	1
VDARE		2018	2018	VDARE was deprecated in the 2018 RfC. There is consensus to add VDARE to the warn filter. 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		1 A B	2010	There is no consensus about the reliability of Venezuelanalysis. Though it can be useful for some news related to Venezuela, Venezuelanalysis states that "it is clearly pro-Bolivarian Revolution" and supports the Venezuelan government. Because of this, it is recommended that this source be properly attributed.[49]	1
VentureBeat		1 2	2011	VentureBeat is considered a generally reliable source for business- and technology-related articles.	1
The Verge		2018	2018	There is broad consensus that The Verge is a reliable source for use in articles relating to technology, science, and automobiles.	1
The Wall Street Journal (WSJ)		1 2 3 4	2014	Most editors consider The Wall Street Journal a generally reliable source. Use WP:NEWSBLOG to evaluate the newspaper's blogs, including Washington Wire. Use WP:RSOPINION for opinion pieces.	1
The Washington Examiner		1 2 3 4	2017	There is no consensus about the reliability of The Washington Examiner.	1
The Washington Post (WaPo)		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11	2018	Most editors consider The Washington Post a generally reliable source. Some editors note that WP:NEWSBLOG should be used to evaluate blog posts on The Washington Post's website.	1
The Washington Times		1 2	2017	There is a general consensus that if the The Washington Times is to be considered reliable, it is only marginally so, and is to be avoided when better sourcing is available. The Washington Times may be considered partisan with regard to US politics, with particular care given to issues of climate change and US race relations in general. However, the nature of The Washington Times with regard to US politics has been a contentious issue among editors, with both its proponents and detractors.	1
The Weekly Standard		1 2 3	2014	The Weekly Standard is generally considered a reliable source, but much of their published content is opinion and should be attributed as such. Most editors assert this magazine is a partisan source.	1
WhoSampled		1 2	2016	WhoSampled is almost entirely composed of user-generated content.[50] As a self-published source, WhoSampled is considered generally unreliable.	1
Wikia (Fandom)		1 2 3 4 5	2016	Wikia (including Fandom) is considered generally unreliable because open wikis are self-published sources. Although citing Wikia as a source is against policy, copying Wikia content into Wikipedia is permissible if it is published under a compatible license (some wikis may use licenses like CC BY-NC and CC BY-NC-ND, which are incompatible). Use the ((Wikia content)) template to provide the necessary attribution in these cases, and ensure the article meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines after copying.	1
Wikileaks		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12	2018	Wikileaks is a repository of primary source documents leaked by anonymous sources. Most 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 the external links guideline.	1
Wikinews		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8	2012	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		+15[k]	2018	Wikipedia 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
Wired		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A	2018	Wired magazine is considered a generally reliable source for science and technology.	1
WorldNetDaily (WND)		2018 +16[l]	2018	WorldNetDaily was deprecated in the 2018 RfC. There is a 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.[60] 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
YouTube		1 2 3 4 5	2016	Most videos on YouTube are anonymous, self-published, and unverifiable, and should not be used at all. 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 the external links guideline. See also WP:YOUTUBE and WP:VIDEOLINK.	1
ZDNet		1 2 3 4 5 6 7	2018	ZDNet is considered a generally reliable source for technology-related articles.	1
Generally reliable: Editors show consensus that the source is reliable in most cases. The source has a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and error-correction, often in the form of a strong editorial team. It will normally still be necessary to analyze how much weight to give the source and how to describe its statements. Arguments to exclude such a source entirely must be strong and convincing: e.g. the material is contradicted by more authoritative sources, it is outside the source's accepted area of competence (a well-established news organization is normally reliable for politics but not for philosophy), a specific subcategory of the source is less reliable (such as opinion pieces in a newspaper), the source is making an exceptional claim, or the source is primary in a context where secondary sources are necessary (WP:MEDRS, WP:BLP). No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply: The source is neither generally reliable nor generally unreliable. Editors may not have been able to agree on whether the source is appropriate, or may have agreed that it is only reliable in certain circumstances. It may be necessary to review each use of the source on a case-by-case basis while accounting for specific factors unique to the source in question. It may be important to carefully review the Summary column of the table for details on the status of the source and what issues may need to be considered. Generally unreliable: Editors show consensus that the source is questionable in most cases. The source may lack an editorial team, have a poor reputation for fact-checking, fail to correct errors, be self-published, or present user-generated content. Outside of specialized circumstances, the source should not normally be used, and it should never be used for information about a living person. Even in cases where the source may be valid, it is usually better to find a more reliable source instead. If no such source exists, that may suggest that the information is inaccurate. Deprecated: There is community consensus from a request for comment to deprecate the source. The source is considered generally unreliable, and use of the source is generally prohibited. Despite this, the source may be cited as a primary source if it is the topic of discussion, and the source may be used under WP:ABOUTSELF. However, reliable secondary sources are still preferred. An edit filter is in place to warn editors who attempt to cite the source as a reference in articles. The warning message can be dismissed. Blacklisted: Due to persistent abuse, usually in the form of external link spamming, the source is on the spam blacklist or the Wikimedia global spam blacklist. External links to this source are blocked, unless an exception is made for a specific link in the spam whitelist. Request for comment: The linked discussion is a request for comment. The closing statement of any RfC that is not clearly outdated should normally be considered authoritative and can only be overturned by a newer RfC. Stale discussions: The source has not been discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard for several years, and the consensus may have changed since the most recent discussion. However, sources that are considered generally unreliable for being self-published or presenting user-generated content are excluded, and a change in consensus resulting from changes in the source itself does not apply to publications of the source from before the changes in question. Additionally, while it may be prudent to review these sources before using them, editors should generally assume that the source's previous status is still in effect if there is no reason to believe that the circumstances have changed. Discussion in progress: The source is currently being discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard. Italic numbers represent active discussions (all discussions that are not closed or archived) on the reliable sources noticeboard. Letters represent discussions outside of the reliable sources noticeboard.

• List of fake news websites
• List of satirical news websites
• Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites
• Wikipedia:Neutrality of sources, an essay on the use of reliable, but non-neutral sources
• Wikipedia:Potentially unreliable sources, categorical listing of sources that may appear reliable, but may not be
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources, as above for articles about popular music
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources, as above for articles about video games