Wikipedia:Fuentes confiables/Fuentes perennes

Esta es una página de información . No se trata de un artículo enciclopédico ni de una de las políticas o pautas de Wikipedia ; más bien, su propósito es explicar ciertos aspectos de la Guía de fuentes confiables de Wikipedia . Puede reflejar diferentes niveles de consenso y verificación .

Atajos Página de inicio: RSP Página de inicio: RS/P Página de inicio: RSPS

Esta página en pocas palabras: Esta es una lista de fuentes discutidas repetidamente, recopiladas y resumidas para mayor comodidad. El consenso puede cambiar y el contexto es de gran importancia a la hora de determinar cómo utilizar esta lista. Aquí se enumeran solo las fuentes que se han planteado repetidamente para su discusión; no es una lista general o completa de todas las fuentes generalmente confiables o no confiables del mundo, es un resumen de las discusiones sobre las fuentes enumeradas.

A continuación se presenta una lista no exhaustiva de fuentes cuya fiabilidad y uso se discuten con frecuencia en Wikipedia. Esta lista resume los consensos previos y consolida los vínculos a los debates más profundos y recientes del tablón de anuncios de fuentes fiables y de otros lugares de Wikipedia.

El contexto es de suma importancia y algunas fuentes pueden ser adecuadas o no para ciertos usos según la situación. En caso de duda, consulte las discusiones vinculadas para obtener información más detallada sobre una fuente en particular y su uso. El consenso puede cambiar y, si las discusiones más recientes que consideran nuevas evidencias o argumentos llegan a un consenso diferente, esta lista debe actualizarse para reflejar esos cambios.

Consulte la leyenda para conocer las definiciones de los íconos de la lista, pero tenga en cuenta que los resúmenes de las discusiones brindan una orientación más específica sobre las fuentes que los íconos de la columna "Estado". En caso de duda, consulte las discusiones vinculadas, que brindan argumentos detallados sobre cuándo es apropiado usar una fuente. La lista no es un documento independiente; se deriva de las conclusiones de las discusiones a las que se hace referencia y de las solicitudes formales de comentarios (RfC). Esta lista indexa las discusiones que reflejan el consenso de la comunidad y está pensada como un resumen útil.

El contexto es de gran importancia a la hora de determinar la fiabilidad de las fuentes y su uso adecuado en Wikipedia. Las fuentes que, en general, no son fiables pueden resultar útiles en algunas situaciones. Por ejemplo, incluso las fuentes de muy baja calidad, como las redes sociales, pueden utilizarse a veces como fuentes autopublicadas para obtener información rutinaria sobre los propios temas . Por el contrario, algunas fuentes que, por lo demás, son de alta calidad pueden no ser fiables para temas muy técnicos que se encuentran muy fuera de sus áreas de especialización habituales , e incluso las fuentes de muy alta calidad pueden cometer errores ocasionalmente o retractarse de piezas que han publicado en su totalidad. Incluso teniendo en cuenta el contenido publicado por una única fuente, algunos pueden representar un periodismo profesional de alta calidad, mientras que otros pueden ser simplemente artículos de opinión, que representan principalmente las opiniones personales del autor y dependen de la fiabilidad personal del autor como fuente. Tenga especial cuidado con el contenido patrocinado , porque, si bien normalmente no es fiable como fuente, está diseñado para parecer lo contrario.

Tenga en cuenta el tipo de contenido al que se hace referencia, junto con la fiabilidad de las fuentes citadas. Las afirmaciones mundanas y no controvertidas pueden respaldarse con fuentes livianas, mientras que la información relacionada con la biomedicina y las personas vivas generalmente requiere las más importantes.

Si su fuente no está en la lista, significa que no ha sido objeto de discusiones reiteradas en la comunidad. Esto puede deberse a que la fuente es excelente y nunca tuvimos que hablar de ella porque es tan obviamente confiable ^[a] , o puede significar que la fuente es tan obviamente deficiente que nunca mereció discusión. Puede significar que la fuente cubre un tema específico ^[b] , o que simplemente se pasó por alto. Si le preocupa que se use alguna fuente en Wikipedia, debe revisar el tablón de anuncios de fuentes confiables (RSN), siguiendo las instrucciones en la parte superior de esa página, donde puede "Buscar en los archivos del tablón de anuncios":

Si no encuentras lo que buscas, inicia un debate al respecto allí. Al fin y al cabo, así es como se crearon las entradas de esta lista.

También puede encontrar una lista mucho más larga de fuentes discutidas previamente sobre varios temas en Wikipedia:Nueva guía de fuentes de patrulla de páginas .

La ausencia de una fuente en la lista no implica que sea más o menos fiable que las fuentes que sí figuran. La ausencia significa simplemente que su fiabilidad no ha sido aún objeto de un cuestionamiento serio. " La ausencia de pruebas no es prueba de ausencia " .

Esta página no es:

• Nuna lista de fuentes aprobadas previamente que siempre se pueden utilizar sin tener en cuenta las reglas habituales de edición
• Nuna lista de fuentes prohibidas que nunca se pueden usar o que deben eliminarse al verlas
• Nuna lista de fuentes sesgadas o imparciales
• Nuna lista de fuentes que se garantiza que son 100% correctas independientemente del contexto
• NUna lista de todas las fuentes que se han discutido.
• Nuna lista de fuentes que nunca se han discutido o cuya confiabilidad debería ser obvia para la mayoría de los editores
• Nuna lista de fuentes primarias , secundarias o terciarias
• Nuna lista de fuentes independientes o afiliadas.
• Nuna lista de fuentes autopublicadas y no autopublicadas.

Esta página es:

• Yuna lista de fuentes cuya idoneidad para la mayoría de propósitos generales se ha discutido repetidamente .

El consenso puede cambiar . Si las circunstancias han evolucionado desde la discusión más reciente, ha surgido nueva evidencia que no estaba disponible en ese momento o hay una nueva línea de argumentación que no se había tratado anteriormente, considere iniciar una discusión o una solicitud de comentarios (RfC) en el tablón de anuncios de fuentes confiables .

Antes de hacerlo, familiarícese completamente con el contenido de los debates anteriores y, en particular, con el razonamiento por el que se llegó a un consenso, y no simplemente con el resultado en sí. Considere también cuándo se formó el consenso y que es poco probable que los resultados de debates muy recientes se revoquen rápidamente. Reiniciar repetidamente debates en los que ya existe un consenso sólido y reciente puede considerarse una perturbación y una forma de buscar el foro más adecuado .

Si cree que esta lista resume de forma inadecuada el contenido de las discusiones enlazadas, por favor ayude a mejorarla o inicie una discusión en la página de discusión , especialmente si sus cambios resultan controvertidos . Al actualizar esta lista, tenga en cuenta que solo debe resumir el contenido de discusiones pasadas y no debe incluir argumentos novedosos que no se hayan tratado previamente en un foro centralizado. Si desea presentar un argumento o interpretación novedosos, hágalo en uno de estos foros, para que la discusión pueda vincularse y resumirse aquí.

Para que una fuente se agregue a esta lista, los editores generalmente esperan dos o más discusiones significativas sobre la confiabilidad de la fuente en el pasado, o una solicitud ininterrumpida de comentarios sobre la confiabilidad de la fuente que tuvo lugar en el tablón de anuncios de fuentes confiables . Para que una discusión se considere significativa, la mayoría de los editores esperan no menos de dos participantes calificados para las discusiones de RSN donde el nombre de la fuente está en el encabezado de la sección, y no menos de tres participantes calificados para todas las demás discusiones. Los participantes calificados son editores que hacen al menos un comentario sobre la confiabilidad de la fuente.

Cualquier editor puede mejorar esta lista. Consulta las instrucciones para obtener más detalles y pide ayuda en la página de discusión si tienes problemas.

Se ha sugerido que Wikipedia:Fuentes obsoletas#Fuentes actualmente obsoletas se fusione en esta sección. ( Discutir ) Propuesto desde junio de 2024.

Fuentes perennes

Fuente	Estado (leyenda)	Discusiones			Usar
		Lista	Último	Resumen
112 Ucrania		2019 2020 2020    1 A B	2020	112 Ucrania fue descontinuada luego de una convocatoria de propuestas de 2019, que mostró un consenso abrumador a favor de la descontinuación de una serie de fuentes asociadas con la desinformación rusa en Ucrania. Más adelante, en una convocatoria de propuestas de 2020, se señaló que 112 Ucrania no había sido discutida explícitamente en esa primera discusión antes de su solicitud de inclusión en la lista negra. Una discusión posterior estableció un consenso aproximado de que la fuente en general no es confiable, pero no se formó un consenso para la descontinuación o inclusión en la lista negra. La inclusión anterior en la lista negra fue revocada por estar fuera de proceso. 112 Ucrania cerró en 2021.	1   2
ABC News (Estados Unidos)		1 2	2021	Existe consenso en que ABC News, la división de noticias de la American Broadcasting Company , es generalmente confiable. No debe confundirse con otras publicaciones del mismo nombre .	1   2
Repositorios académicos WP:ACADREP  📌 WP:ACADEMIA.EDU  📌 WP:RGATE  📌 WP:ZENODO  📌		16 [c]	2024	Los repositorios generales como Academia.edu , HAL Open Archives , ResearchGate , Semantic Scholar y Zenodo albergan artículos académicos, actas de conferencias, capítulos de libros, preprints, informes técnicos, etc. No existen filtros de calidad y albergarán varios preprints no revisados , artículos retractados no marcados como tales, manuscritos no revisados ​​e incluso artículos de revistas depredadoras . Determine la fuente original de lo que se está citando para establecer la confiabilidad. Cuando sea posible, cite la fuente original con preferencia al repositorio.	1   2   3
Ad Fontes Media WP:ADFONTES  📌		1 2 3 4 5	2021	Existe consenso en que Ad Fontes Media y su Media Bias Chart no deberían utilizarse en el espacio de los artículos en referencia a la inclinación política o la fiabilidad de las fuentes. Los editores consideran que se trata de una fuente autopublicada y han cuestionado su metodología.	1
Advameg ( Datos de la ciudad )		2019 2019 2019    +14 [d]	2019	Advameg opera granjas de contenido , incluyendo City-Data , que utilizan contenido extraído o con licencia incorrecta. Estos sitios frecuentemente republican contenido de las enciclopedias de Gale ; muchos editores pueden obtener acceso a Gale a través de la Biblioteca Wikipedia de forma gratuita. Los sitios de Advameg están en la lista negra de spam de Wikipedia , y los enlaces deben estar en la lista blanca antes de poder usarse. WP:COPYLINK prohíbe los enlaces a violaciones de derechos de autor.	1   2   +43
La edad		2021	2021	The Age es un periódico con sede en Melbourne, Australia. Existe consenso en que, en general, es confiable.	1
Agencia France-Presse (AFP)		1 2 3	2021	La Agence France-Presse es una agencia de noticias . Existe consenso en que la Agence France-Presse es, en general, fiable. Los informes sindicados de la Agence France-Presse que se publican en otras fuentes también se consideran, en general, fiables.	1
Al Jazeera WP:ALJAZEERA  📌		2024 +14 [e]	2024	Al Jazeera es una organización de noticias financiada por el estado de Qatar y en la convocatoria de 2024 hubo consenso en que, en general, es confiable. La mayoría de los editores parecen estar de acuerdo en que Al Jazeera English y, especialmente, Al Jazeera Arabic son fuentes sesgadas sobre el conflicto árabe-israelí y sobre temas en los que el gobierno de Qatar tiene un conflicto de intereses. Los editores perciben que Al Jazeera English es más confiable que Al Jazeera Arabic . Los blogs en vivo de Al Jazeera deben tratarse con precaución, según la política sobre blogs de noticias . Tenga en cuenta que el nombre de dominio "aljazeera.com" recién comenzó a albergar contenido de Al Jazeera English en 2011; los enlaces a aljazeera.com anteriores a 2011 apuntaban a la revista no afiliada Al Jazeera Magazine .	1   2
Al Mayadeen WP:ALMAYADEEN  📌		2023  2023 2023	2023	Al Mayadeen es un canal de noticias panarabista libanés. Fue descontinuado en una RFC de 2023. Algunos editores creen que publica mentiras o tergiversa las fuentes, otros lo describen como propaganda.	1   2
Internet de Alexa		2022 1 2 3 Un	2022	Alexa Internet era una empresa de análisis de tráfico web propiedad de Amazon y dejó de operar en mayo de 2022. No hay consenso sobre la fiabilidad de las clasificaciones de sitios web de Alexa Internet . Según Alexa Internet, las clasificaciones de sitios web con poco tráfico son menos fiables que las clasificaciones de sitios web con mucho tráfico, y las clasificaciones de 100 000 o más no son fiables. Una convocatoria de propuestas de marzo de 2022 no encontró consenso sobre si las citas de Alexa Internet deberían eliminarse ahora que el servicio ha dejado de funcionar. Debido a su inestabilidad, las clasificaciones de Alexa deberían excluirse de los cuadros de información .	1
Todos los lados WP: TODOS LOS LADOS  📌		2022 1 2 3 4 5 6	2023	En una convocatoria de comentarios de 2022, los editores no encontraron consenso sobre la fiabilidad de AllSides en su conjunto. Una minoría significativa de usuarios señaló que AllSides ha sido citado en fuentes fiables como una fuente precisa para las calificaciones de sesgo de los medios, mientras que otra minoría significativa argumentó que su metodología, que se basa en parte en las opiniones de los usuarios, lo hace inadecuado para Wikipedia. Existe un consenso general en que la fiabilidad varía entre los artículos del sitio web y debe determinarse caso por caso; si bien las calificaciones de alta confianza son generalmente fiables, ya que son revisadas cuidadosamente por expertos, otras dependen de encuestas a usuarios ciegos que algunos editores consideran opinativas y menos fiables.	1
AlterNet		1 2 3 4 5	2019	Existe consenso en que AlterNet no es, en general, confiable. Los editores consideran que AlterNet es una fuente partidista y sus afirmaciones deben atribuirse . El contenido sindicado de AlterNet debe evaluarse en función de la confiabilidad de su editor original y la cita debe apuntar preferentemente al editor original.	1
Amazonas WP:RSPAMAZON  📌		1 2 3 4 5 6 7	2021	Las reseñas de usuarios en Amazon son anónimas, autopublicadas y no verificables, y no deben utilizarse en absoluto. Amazon es una fuente confiable de información básica sobre una obra (como fecha de publicación, ISBN, etc.), aunque no es necesario citar a Amazon cuando la obra en sí puede servir como fuente de esa información (por ejemplo, nombres de autores e ISBN). Las fechas de publicación futuras pueden no ser confiables.	1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16
El Conservador Americano ( TAC ) WP:TAC  📌		2019 2020 2021    1 2	2023	The American Conservative es una publicación del American Ideas Institute, una organización de defensa de los derechos de los consumidores. Se trata de una fuente autoidentificada de opinión cuya precisión fáctica ha sido cuestionada y muchos editores afirman que The American Conservative no debería utilizarse como fuente de hechos. Existe consenso en que las opiniones citadas en el artículo deben ir siempre acompañadas de la atribución en el texto .	1
Amnistía Internacional (Amnistía, AI)		2022 1 2 3	2023	Amnistía Internacional es una organización de defensa de los derechos humanos. Existe consenso en que Amnistía Internacional es, en general, fiable en lo que respecta a los hechos. En ocasiones, los editores pueden desear utilizar una redacción más neutral que la utilizada por Amnistía y, en casos controvertidos, pueden considerar la posibilidad de atribuir la opinión a los autores.	1
Agencia Anadolu (temas generales) (AA) WP:ANADOLU  📌		2019 1 2	2023	La convocatoria de 2019 no estableció un consenso sobre la fiabilidad de la Agencia Anadolu. Los medios de comunicación bien establecidos suelen considerarse fiables en lo que respecta a las declaraciones de hechos. Sin embargo, a menudo se describe a la Agencia Anadolu como un portavoz del gobierno turco que se dedica a la propaganda, debido a su condición de entidad estatal . Véase también: Agencia Anadolu (temas controvertidos, política internacional).	1   2
Agencia Anadolu (temas polémicos, política internacional) (AA) WP:AAPOLITICS  📌		2019	2019	En la convocatoria de 2019, los editores coincidieron en que la Agencia Anadolu no suele ser fiable en lo que respecta a temas controvertidos o relacionados con la política internacional. Véase también: Agencia Anadolu (temas generales).	1   2
Ancestry.com WP:ANCESTRY  📌		1 2 3 4 5 6	2021	Ancestry.com es un sitio de genealogía que alberga una base de datos de documentos de fuentes primarias , incluidos registros de matrimonio y censos. Algunas de estas fuentes pueden utilizarse en WP:PRIMARY , pero las fuentes secundarias, cuando están disponibles, suelen ser las preferidas; para más información, consulte WP:BLPPRIMARY . Ancestry.com también alberga contenido generado por el usuario , que no es confiable.	1
ANNA News (Agencia de Noticias de la Red Abjasia, Agencia de Noticias de la Red Analítica)		2022  2022 2022 1	2022	ANNA News fue desestimada en la convocatoria de propuestas de 2022. Se trata de una agencia de noticias pro-Kremlin que ha sido descrita como propagandística y ha publicado información inventada.	1
Respuestas.com (WikiAnswers)		1 2 3 4	2010	Answers.com (anteriormente conocido como WikiAnswers) es un sitio de preguntas y respuestas que incorpora contenido generado por los usuarios . En el pasado, Answers.com republicaba extractos y resúmenes de fuentes terciarias , entre ellas D&B Hoovers , Gale y HighBeam Research . Las citas de contenido republicado en Answers.com deben señalar la fuente original, con una nota que indique que se accedió a la fuente "a través de Answers.com". Answers.com también sirvió anteriormente como espejo de Wikipedia ; el uso de contenido republicado de Wikipedia se considera una fuente circular .	1
Liga Antidifamación (ADL) (excluyendo el conflicto Israel/Palestina y el antisemitismo) WP:RSPADL  📌 WP:ADLHSD  📌		2020 2024  1 2 3 4 5 6 7	2024	Existe consenso en que, fuera del tema del conflicto entre Israel y Palestina, la ADL es una fuente generalmente confiable, incluso para temas relacionados con grupos de odio y extremismo en los EE. UU. No hay consenso en que se deba atribuir la autoría a la ADL en todos los casos, pero sí en que se debe atribuir la etiqueta de organizaciones e individuos por parte de la ADL (en particular como antisemitas). Algunos editores consideran que los artículos de opinión de la ADL no son confiables y que solo se deben usar con atribución. En la RfC de 2024, hubo un consenso aproximado de que la base de datos de símbolos de odio es confiable para la existencia de un símbolo y para hechos sencillos sobre él, pero no es confiable para detalles más complejos, como la historia de los símbolos. La atribución en el texto a la ADL puede ser aconsejable cuando se cita en tales casos.	1   2
Liga Antidifamación (ADL) (antisemitismo, excluyendo a Israel o al sionismo) WP:ADLAS  📌		2020 2024  1	2024	En líneas generales, se puede considerar que la ADL es fiable en lo que respecta al tema del antisemitismo cuando no se trata de Israel ni del sionismo, y la fiabilidad es una cuestión que se analiza caso por caso. Existe consenso en que la clasificación de organizaciones e individuos por parte de la ADL como antisemitas debe atribuirse a la palabra antisemitismo . La ADL también ha demostrado tener la costumbre de confundir las críticas a las acciones del gobierno israelí con el antisemitismo.	1
Liga Antidifamación (ADL) (conflicto entre Israel y Palestina, incluido el antisemitismo relacionado) WP:ADLPIA  📌 WP:ADLIPA  📌		2024 1	2024	Existe consenso en que la ADL es una fuente poco fiable en general sobre el conflicto entre Israel y Palestina, debido a la evidencia significativa de que la ADL actúa como un grupo de defensa pro-israelí y ha publicado repetidamente declaraciones falsas y engañosas como hechos, sin retractarse, sobre el conflicto entre Israel y Palestina. La falta de fiabilidad general de la ADL se extiende a la intersección de los temas del antisemitismo y el conflicto entre Israel y Palestina.	1
Antiguerra.com		1 2 3 4	2011	Existe consenso en que Antiwar.com no es, en general, confiable. Los editores consideran que Antiwar.com es parcial o tiene opiniones .	1   2
Aón		2022 1	2022	En una convocatoria de propuestas de 2022, hubo consenso en que Aon es, en general, confiable para los artículos relacionados con el clima. Los editores señalaron que Aon a menudo proporciona datos que no se encuentran en otras fuentes y que se debe tener cuidado al utilizar la fuente, ya que puede proporcionar una estimación diferente a la de otras fuentes, por ejemplo, daños económicos totales, en lugar de daños a la propiedad.	1
Apple diario		2020 1	2021	Una convocatoria de propuestas de 2020 concluyó que Apple Daily era a menudo, pero no siempre, confiable, y que podría ser apropiado usarlo en artículos sobre Hong Kong, pero sujeto al juicio editorial, particularmente si el tema es controvertido y/o Apple Daily es la única fuente para una afirmación controvertida. Existía la preocupación de que, históricamente, no era necesariamente tan confiable como lo fue en 2020. Apple Daily cerró en junio de 2021; el contenido del sitio web ya no es accesible a menos que esté archivado. [1] Los editores con acceso a Dow Jones Factiva pueden acceder a los artículos publicados por ellos en forma impresa entre el 1 de enero de 2012 y el 15 de marzo de 2018; el código fuente en chino simplificado es APPLDS y el código fuente en chino tradicional es APPLOT.	1
Noticias árabes		2020 1 2 3 4	2021	Existe consenso en que Arab News es una fuente útil para temas no relacionados con el gobierno de Arabia Saudita . Como Arab News está estrechamente asociada con el gobierno de Arabia Saudita y se publica en un país con poca libertad de prensa , los editores consideran que Arab News es parcial y no independiente en lo que respecta a la política de Arabia Saudita, y recomiendan que se le atribuya su cobertura en esta área. Algunos editores consideran que Arab News no es confiable para asuntos relacionados con el gobierno de Arabia Saudita.	1
Reconocimiento del ejército WP:ARMYRECOGNITION  📌		1 2	2021	El sitio web reproduce material de comunicados de prensa sin ningún reportaje original. En al menos un caso, ha copiado contenido de otras fuentes sin atribución. Los editores alegan que Army Recognition opera sobre la base de un pago por cobertura, brindando "soluciones de marketing y publicidad en línea" para la industria de defensa. Este modelo puede plantear dudas sobre la imparcialidad e independencia de su contenido.	1   1
Ars-Tecnica		1 2 3	2022	Ars Technica se considera generalmente confiable para artículos relacionados con la ciencia y la tecnología.	1   2
Noticias asiáticas internacionales (ANI) WP:RSPANI  📌		2021	2021	Asian News International es una agencia de noticias india . En lo que respecta a la información general, se considera que Asian News International es entre marginalmente confiable y generalmente poco confiable , y existe consenso en que es parcial y que se debe atribuir la información en el texto en caso de afirmaciones polémicas. En lo que respecta a su cobertura relacionada con la política interna de la India, la política exterior y otros temas en los que el Gobierno de la India puede tener un interés establecido, existe consenso en que Asian News International es cuestionable y generalmente poco confiable debido a su supuesta difusión de propaganda a favor del gobierno.	1
Pregúntale a los hombres		1 2 3 4 5 6	2020	No hay consenso sobre la fiabilidad de AskMen. Véase también: IGN.	1
Asociación de Archivos de Datos Religiosos ( ARDA, Pew–Templeton Global Religious Futures ) WP:THEARDA  📌 WP:GORDONCONWELL  📌 WP:GLOBALRELIGIOUSFUTURES  📌		2022 1 2	2022	No hay consenso sobre la confiabilidad; consenso aproximado en utilizar las fuentes con atribución en el texto y preferir el uso de fuentes más sólidas.	1   1   1   1   1
Prensa Asociada (AP)		12 [f]	2024	Associated Press es una agencia de noticias . Existe consenso en que Associated Press es, en general, confiable. Los informes sindicados de Associated Press que se publican en otras fuentes también se consideran, en general, confiables.	1   2
El Atlántico ( The Atlantic Monthly )		1 2 3 4 5	2024	En general, se considera que The Atlantic es confiable. Los editores deben tener en cuenta que The Atlantic no siempre distingue claramente entre contenido periodístico y contenido de opinión; los artículos de opinión, incluidos todos los artículos de la columna "Ideas" (theatlantic.com/ideas/), se rigen por WP:RSOPINION .	1
Artículos sobre "lugares" de Atlas Obscura WP:AOPLACES  📌		1 2 3 4	2023	Los artículos sobre "lugares" de Atlas Obscura son generados por los usuarios y pueden ser editados por ellos con una mínima supervisión, y los términos de uso del sitio incluyen exenciones de responsabilidad sobre los envíos de los usuarios. Muchos de los artículos sobre "lugares" citan a Wikipedia como fuente de su información o carecen de fuentes claras o confiables. Por lo general, no se debe hacer referencia a estos artículos en Wikipedia.	1
Artículos de Atlas Obscura WP:AOARTICLES  📌		1 2 3 4	2023	Los artículos de Atlas Obscura están escritos por profesionales bajo la supervisión de un editor y, por lo general, son confiables. Sin embargo, otras áreas del sitio funcionan como proveedores de servicios de viajes comerciales y el sitio aloja contenido generado por los usuarios en sus artículos de "lugares" (consulte WP:AOPLACES )	1
El australiano		1 2 3	2024	The Australian se considera generalmente confiable. Algunos editores consideran que The Australian es una fuente partidista. Los artículos de opinión están cubiertos por WP:RSOPINION y WP:NEWSBLOG . Varios editores expresaron preocupación por su cobertura de temas relacionados con el cambio climático.	1
Instituto Australiano de Política Estratégica (ASPI)		2021	2021	Existe consenso en que el uso del Instituto Australiano de Política Estratégica debe evaluarse para determinar su importancia y debe ir acompañado de una atribución en el texto cuando se utilice. Los editores consideran que el Instituto Australiano de Política Estratégica es una fuente sesgada o con opiniones que es confiable en el área temática de defensa y cuestiones estratégicas australianas, pero recomiendan tener cuidado, ya que es un grupo de expertos asociado con la industria de defensa en Australia y el gobierno australiano.	1
El Club AV		1 2 3 4 A	2023	Se considera que AV Club es, en general, una fuente confiable de reseñas de cine, música y televisión. Existe consenso en que los artículos generados por IA no suelen ser confiables; la empresa matriz de AV Club , G/O Media, comenzó a publicar este tipo de artículos en julio de 2023, generalmente bajo el nombre de "The AV Club Bot". [2]	1
AVN ( Noticias sobre vídeos para adultos , Revista AVN )		2021	2021	AVN se considera generalmente confiable para la industria para adultos. Los editores deben asegurarse de que el contenido no sea un comunicado de prensa republicado (que aparece marcado como tal en la búsqueda).	1
Axios		1 2	2020	Existe consenso en que Axios es, en general, confiable. Algunos editores consideran que Axios es una fuente parcial o con opiniones . Las declaraciones de opinión deben atribuirse y evaluarse para determinar su peso .	1
Baidu Baike WP:BAIDUBAIKE  📌		2020  2021 2024 2020 2024 1 2 3 4	2020	Baidu Baike quedó obsoleto en la convocatoria de propuestas de 2020 porque es similar a una wiki abierta , que es un tipo de fuente autopublicada . Aunque los administradores de Baidu revisan las ediciones antes de publicarlas, la mayoría de los editores creen que los estándares editoriales de Baidu Baike son muy bajos y no ven ninguna evidencia de verificación de datos. El kuso Baidu 10 Mythical Creatures se originó a partir de Baidu Baike.	1   2   3   4
Ballotpedia WP:BALLOTPEDIA  📌		1 2 3	2016	No existe consenso sobre la fiabilidad de Ballotpedia. El sitio cuenta con un equipo editorial y acepta correcciones de errores, pero algunos editores no expresan una confianza sólida en el proceso editorial del sitio. Las discusiones indican que Ballotpedia solía ser una wiki abierta , pero en algún momento dejó de aceptar contenido generado por los usuarios . Actualmente, el sitio afirma: "Los artículos de Ballotpedia están escritos en un 100 por ciento por nuestro personal profesional de más de 50 escritores e investigadores". [3]	1
BBC (Corporación Británica de Radiodifusión) WP:RSPBBC  📌		+22 [g]	2024	La BBC es una emisora ​​británica financiada con fondos públicos . Se considera que, en general, es fiable. Esto incluye BBC News , documentales de la BBC y el sitio BBC History (en BBC Online ). Sin embargo, esto excluye los proyectos de la BBC que incorporan contenido generado por los usuarios (como h2g2 y el BBC Domesday Project ) y las publicaciones de la BBC con una supervisión editorial reducida (como Collective ). Las declaraciones de opinión deben cumplir con la directriz correspondiente.	1   2
Detrás de los actores de doblaje (BTVA) WP:RSPBTVA  📌		2022 +10 [h]	2024	Existe consenso en que Behind the Voice Actors es generalmente confiable para los créditos de los papeles. Los editores coinciden en que su cobertura es rutinaria y no contribuye a la notoriedad .	1
Gato campanero		2019 1 2 3 4 5 6	2021	Existe consenso en que Bellingcat es, en general, confiable para las noticias y, de preferencia, se debe utilizar con atribución . Algunos editores consideran que Bellingcat es una fuente sesgada .	1
mejorgore.com		2021  2021	2021	Existe consenso en que bestgore.com es un sitio impactante y sin credibilidad. Está en desuso y se ha agregado a la lista negra de correo no deseado . bestgore.com se cerró en 2020; el contenido del sitio web ya no es accesible a menos que esté archivado.	1
Imagen WP:BILD  📌		1 2 3	2020	Bild es un periódico sensacionalista alemán que ha sido comparado desfavorablemente con The Sun. Algunos editores consideran que la fuente es utilizable en algunos casos.	1
Blaze Media (BlazeTV, Revisión conservadora , CRTV, TheBlaze)		1 2 3	2018	Blaze Media (incluido TheBlaze) se considera poco fiable en términos generales en lo que respecta a los hechos. En algunos casos, puede resultar útil para opiniones atribuidas . En 2018, TheBlaze se fusionó con Conservative Review (CRTV) para formar Blaze Media. [4]	1   2
Blogger (blogspot.com)		21 [i]	2020	Blogger es un servicio de alojamiento de blogs que posee el dominio blogspot.com. Como fuente autopublicada , se considera generalmente poco confiable y debe evitarse a menos que el autor sea un experto en la materia o el blog se use para autodescripciones no controvertidas . Los blogs de Blogger publicados por una organización de medios deben evaluarse en función de la confiabilidad de la organización. Los blogs de periódicos alojados con Blogger deben manejarse con WP:NEWSBLOG . Blogger nunca debe usarse para afirmaciones de terceros relacionadas con personas vivas ; esto incluye entrevistas, ya que incluso estas no pueden autenticarse.	1
Bloomberg ( Bloomberg News , Bloomberg Businessweek )		1 2 3 4	2019	Las publicaciones de Bloomberg, incluidas Bloomberg News y Bloomberg Businessweek , se consideran generalmente confiables en lo que respecta a noticias y temas de negocios. Consulte también: Perfiles de Bloomberg.	1   2
Perfiles de Bloomberg		1 2	2018	Por lo general, se considera que los perfiles de empresas y ejecutivos de Bloomberg se basan en comunicados de prensa de la empresa y solo deben usarse como fuente de información no controvertida. Existe consenso en que estos perfiles no deben usarse para establecer notoriedad . Algunos editores consideran que estos perfiles son similares a fuentes autopublicadas . Véase también: Bloomberg.	1
¡Bub, bub!		1 2 3	2019	No existe consenso sobre la fiabilidad de Boing Boing . Aunque Boing Boing es un blog grupal , algunos de sus artículos están escritos por expertos en la materia, como Cory Doctorow , considerado generalmente confiable en materia de leyes de derechos de autor .	1
Noticias de Breitbart WP:BREITBART  📌		2018 +16 [j] 2018	2023	Debido al abuso persistente, Breitbart.com está en la lista negra de spam de Wikipedia y los enlaces deben estar en la lista blanca antes de que se puedan usar. El sitio ha publicado una serie de falsedades, teorías de conspiración e historias intencionalmente engañosas como hechos. La RfC de 2018 mostró un consenso muy claro de que Breitbart News debería ser desaprobado de la misma manera que el Daily Mail . Esto no significa que Breitbart News ya no se pueda usar, pero no debe usarse, nunca, como referencia de hechos, debido a su falta de confiabilidad. Todavía se puede usar como fuente principal al atribuir opiniones, puntos de vista y comentarios. Breitbart News ha atacado y doxeado directamente a los editores de Wikipedia. Publicar o vincular la información personal de otro editor está prohibido según la política de revelación , a menos que el editor esté divulgando voluntariamente la información en Wikipedia.	1   2
BroadwayWorld WP:BROADWAYWORLD  📌		1 2 3 4	2023	BroadwayWorld se considera poco fiable en general, ya que contiene muchos artículos que reproducen comunicados de prensa, disfrazándolos de periodismo auténtico. Como el sitio tiene una supervisión editorial limitada y no se conoce quién es el verdadero autor del contenido de los comunicados de prensa, este sitio web no debería utilizarse para divulgar hechos sobre personas vivas .	1
Nobleza de Burke		2020 1	2020	El título de nobleza de Burke se considera generalmente confiable para la genealogía.	1
Bullicio		2019	2019	Existe consenso en que la fiabilidad de Bustle no está clara y que su fiabilidad debería determinarse caso por caso. Los editores señalaron que tiene una política editorial y que emitirá retractaciones. Los editores también señalaron problemas anteriores que tuvo en relación con la fiabilidad y que su contenido está escrito por escritores independientes, aunque no hay consenso sobre si este modelo afecta a su fiabilidad.	1
BuzzFeed WP:BUZZFEED  📌		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9	2023	Los editores consideran que la calidad de los artículos de BuzzFeed es muy inconsistente. Los encuestados en una encuesta de 2014 del Pew Research Center sobre fuentes de noticias en Estados Unidos clasificaron a BuzzFeed en el último lugar de la lista. [5] BuzzFeed puede utilizar pruebas A/B para los artículos nuevos, lo que puede provocar que el contenido de los artículos cambie. [6] BuzzFeed operaba una división de noticias independiente, BuzzFeed News , que tenía estándares editoriales más altos y estaba alojada en un sitio web diferente. Véase también: BuzzFeed News.	1
Noticias de BuzzFeed WP:BUZZFEEDNEWS  📌		12 [k]	2023	Existe consenso en que BuzzFeed News es, en general, confiable. BuzzFeed News operaba por separado de BuzzFeed, y la mayoría del contenido de noticias alojado originalmente en BuzzFeed se trasladó al sitio web de BuzzFeed News en 2018. [7] A la luz de los despidos de personal en BuzzFeed en enero de 2019, algunos editores recomiendan tener más cuidado con los artículos de BuzzFeed News publicados después de esta fecha. Los artículos de opinión del sitio deben manejarse con WP:RSOPINION . BuzzFeed News cerró en mayo de 2023 y sus archivos siguen siendo accesibles. [8] Véase también: BuzzFeed.	1   2
Globo de California		2021	2021	Existe consenso en que The California Globe no es, en general, confiable. Los editores destacan la falta de un proceso editorial sustancial, la falta de evidencia para verificar los hechos y el sesgo presente en el material del sitio. Los editores también destacan la naturaleza altamente opinativa del sitio como evidencia en contra de su confiabilidad.	1
El canario		2021 1 2 3 4	2021	Existe consenso en que The Canary es, en general, poco fiable. Sus artículos son a veces sensacionalistas; también se observaron informes selectivos, un sesgo de izquierda y una escasa distinción entre el contenido editorial y el informativo.	1
Instituto Cato		1 2	2015	El Cato Institute se considera generalmente confiable por sus opiniones. Algunos editores consideran que el Cato Institute es una fuente autorizada sobre el libertarismo en los Estados Unidos . No hay consenso sobre si es generalmente confiable en otros temas. La mayoría de los editores consideran que el Cato Institute es parcial o tiene opiniones , por lo que sus usos deben atribuirse .	1
Noticias de la CBS ( CBS )		1 2 3 4 5 6 7	2023	CBS News es la división de noticias de CBS . Se considera generalmente confiable. Sin embargo, algunos editores advierten que su contenido televisivo puede incluir cobertura superficial, que podría no calificar según WP:MEDRS .	1
CelebrityNetWorth (CNW) WP:CELEBRITYNETWORTH  📌 WP:CNW  📌		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9	2018	Existe consenso en que CelebrityNetWorth no es, en general, confiable. CelebrityNetWorth no revela su metodología y su precisión ha sido criticada por The New York Times . [9]	1
Centro de Investigación Económica y Política (CEPR)		2020	2020	El Centro de Investigación Económica y Política es un grupo de expertos en política económica . Aunque sus artículos son escritos regularmente por expertos en economía y son citados frecuentemente por fuentes confiables, la mayoría de los editores consideran que el CEPR es parcial o tiene opiniones , por lo que sus usos deben atribuirse a .	1
Centro de Investigación sobre la Globalización (CRG, Global Research, globalresearch.ca)		2019 1 2 3 4 5 6 7	2019	Debido a los abusos persistentes, Global Research está en la lista negra de spam de Wikipedia y los enlaces deben incluirse en la lista blanca antes de poder usarse. El Centro de Investigación sobre la Globalización es la organización que opera el sitio web de Global Research (globalresearch.ca, que no debe confundirse con GlobalSecurity.org). El CRG se considera poco confiable en general debido a su propagación de teorías conspirativas y la falta de supervisión editorial. Es parcial o dogmático y es probable que su contenido tenga un peso indebido . Como a menudo cubre material marginal , se debe considerar la paridad de fuentes .	1   2   3
CESNUR (Centro Studi sulle Nuove Religioni, Centro de Estudios sobre Nuevas Religiones, Bitter Winter ) WP:CESNUR  📌		2022 1 2 3 4	2022	CESNUR es un sitio de apología de los nuevos movimientos religiosos y, por lo tanto, es inherentemente poco confiable en su área principal debido a conflictos de intereses . También existe consenso en que su contenido no es confiable por sus propios méritos. CESNUR tiene una revista en línea, Bitter Winter , que también se considera poco confiable en general.	1   2   3
China Daily WP:CHINADAILY  📌		2021 1	2021	China Daily es una publicación propiedad del Partido Comunista Chino . La RfC de 2021 encontró un estrecho consenso en contra de desaprobar China Daily , debido a la falta de fuentes utilizables disponibles para temas chinos. Existe consenso en que China Daily puede usarse, con cautela y buen criterio editorial, como fuente de la posición de las autoridades chinas y del Partido Comunista Chino; como fuente de la posición del propio China Daily ; como fuente de hechos sobre eventos no políticos en China continental, al tiempo que se observa que (a) la interpretación de China Daily de esos hechos es probable que contenga un giro político, y (b) la omisión de detalles de una historia por parte de China Daily no debe usarse para determinar que dichos detalles son falsos; y, con gran cautela, como fuente complementaria (pero no única) de hechos sobre eventos políticos de China continental. Los editores coinciden en que al usar esta fuente, el contexto importa mucho y los hechos deben separarse de la opinión de China Daily sobre esos hechos. Se recomienda utilizar atribución en el texto y citas en línea al obtener contenido para China Daily .	1   2   3
Red de Televisión Global de China (CGTN, CCTV International) WP:CGTN  📌		2020  2020 2020 1 2	2020	La Red de Televisión Global de China fue desautorizada en la convocatoria de comentarios de 2020 por publicar información falsa o inventada. Muchos editores consideran que CGTN es un medio de propaganda y algunos editores expresan su preocupación por la difusión de confesiones forzadas por parte de CGTN .	1
El Monitor de la Ciencia Cristiana ( CSM , CS Monitor ) WP:CSMONITOR  📌		20 [l]	2016	El Christian Science Monitor se considera generalmente confiable en lo que respecta a noticias.	1
Retroalimentación climática		1 2 3 4	2020	Climate Feedback es un sitio web de verificación de datos que se considera generalmente confiable para temas relacionados con el cambio climático . Revela sus metodologías, está certificado por la Red Internacional de Verificación de Datos y ha sido avalado por otras fuentes confiables. La mayoría de los editores no consideran que Climate Feedback sea una fuente autopublicada debido a sus altos requisitos de revisión.	1
CNET (antes de octubre de 2020)		2023 17 [m]	2023	Antes de su adquisición por parte de Red Ventures en octubre de 2020, CNET se consideraba generalmente confiable por sus artículos relacionados con la tecnología . En 2023, Red Ventures comenzó a eliminar miles de artículos antiguos de CNET; es posible que deba utilizar Internet Archive para acceder a este contenido. [10]	1
CNET (octubre de 2020–octubre de 2022)		2023	2023	En octubre de 2020, la empresa de marketing digital Red Ventures adquirió CNET , lo que provocó un deterioro de los estándares editoriales. Los ejecutivos de la empresa presionaron a los redactores para que publicaran contenido más favorable para los anunciantes con el fin de beneficiar las relaciones comerciales de Red Ventures; esto incluía tanto noticias como reseñas.	1
CNET (noviembre de 2022-actualidad) WP:CNET  📌		2023 1	2024	Las preocupaciones sobre el contenido editorial impulsado por los anunciantes de CNET siguen sin resolverse. Por otra parte, en noviembre de 2022, comenzó a implementar una herramienta de inteligencia artificial experimental para generar rápidamente artículos plagados de inexactitudes fácticas y enlaces de afiliados, con el propósito de aumentar las clasificaciones de SEO . CNET nunca reveló formalmente su uso de inteligencia artificial hasta que Futurism y The Verge publicaron informes que exponían sus acciones. Una herramienta de inteligencia artificial que ahora se anunció que se pausaría escribió más de 70 artículos relacionados con las finanzas y los publicó bajo el nombre de "CNET Money Staff", más de la mitad de los cuales recibieron correcciones después de la creciente presión.	1
CNN (cadena de noticias por cable) WP:RSPCNN  📌		2019 2020  +19 [n]	2024	Existe consenso en que las noticias emitidas o publicadas por CNN son generalmente confiables. Sin embargo, iReport consiste únicamente en contenido generado por los usuarios , y el contenido de los programas de entrevistas debe ser tratado como artículos de opinión . Algunos editores consideran que CNN es parcial , aunque no hasta el punto de afectar la confiabilidad.	1
Coda Media (Historia de Coda)		2021	2021	Una convocatoria de propuestas de 2021 concluyó que Coda Media es, en general, confiable en lo que respecta a la información veraz. Algunos editores consideran que Coda Media es una fuente sesgada de información sobre política internacional relacionada con los EE. UU., ya que ha recibido fondos del National Endowment for Democracy , aunque no en la medida en que esto afecte la confiabilidad.	1
CoinDesk WP:COINDESK  📌		2018 2019  1 2 3 4	2023	Existe consenso en que CoinDesk no debería utilizarse para establecer la notoriedad de los temas de los artículos y que debería evitarse en favor de fuentes más convencionales. Revise los artículos de CoinDesk para ver si hay divulgaciones sobre conflictos de intereses y verifique si su empresa matriz en ese momento (anteriormente Digital Currency Group , ahora Bullion) tiene una participación accionaria en una empresa cubierta por CoinDesk. [11]	1
Medios de comunicación de sentido común (CSM) WP:CSM  📌		1 2 3	2020	Existe consenso en que Common Sense Media es, en general, confiable en lo que respecta a las reseñas de entretenimiento. Como organización de defensa, Common Sense Media es parcial o tiene opiniones , y sus declaraciones, en general, deben atribuirse a la autoría .	1
Noticias del consorcio		1 2 3 4 5	2019	Existe consenso en que Consortium News no es, en general, confiable. Algunos artículos (en particular los de Robert Parry ) pueden considerarse autopublicados , ya que no está claro si se realizó una revisión editorial independiente. Se sabe que el medio tiende a repetir acríticamente afirmaciones que son marginales , demostrablemente falsas o que han sido descritas por los medios tradicionales como "teorías conspirativas".	1
La conversación WP:THECONVERSATION  📌		1 2 3	2019	The Conversation publica artículos de académicos que son expertos en la materia . Por lo general, es confiable en temas relacionados con las áreas de especialización de los autores . Las opiniones publicadas en The Conversation deben manejarse con WP:RSOPINION .	1
Cosmopolita		1 2 3 4 5	2019	No hay consenso sobre la fiabilidad de Cosmopolitan . En general, se considera una fuente situacional, lo que significa que el contexto es importante. El tratamiento de Cosmopolitan como fuente debe decidirse caso por caso, en función del artículo y de la información que se desee verificar.	1
Correo del Orinoco		2023	2023	Existe consenso en que el Correo del Orinoco es en general poco confiable porque se utiliza para amplificar información engañosa y/o falsa. Muchos editores consideran que el Correo del Orinoco es utilizado por el gobierno venezolano para promulgar propaganda debido a su conexión con el Sistema Bolivariano de Comunicación e Información .	1
Contraataque WP:CONTRAATAQUE  📌		2021 2022  12 [o]	2022	CounterPunch es una revista de opinión política de izquierdas. A pesar de que la publicación tiene un consejo editorial, no hay un control editorial efectivo sobre el contenido de la publicación, por lo que los artículos deben tratarse como fuentes autopublicadas . Como consecuencia, los artículos generalmente deben evitarse y no deben usarse para establecer notoriedad a menos que sean publicados por expertos en la materia que escriban sobre temas dentro de su dominio de especialización, en cuyo caso pueden considerarse confiables para los hechos. No se permite citar a CounterPunch para afirmaciones de terceros sobre personas vivas . Todos los artículos en CounterPunch deben evaluarse caso por caso, en particular para determinar su debido peso , y las opiniones deben atribuirse . Algunos artículos en la publicación promueven teorías de conspiración y negacionismo histórico , pero no hubo consenso para desaprobar el medio según la RfC más reciente.	1   2
Cracked.com		1 2 3 4 5	2015	Cracked.com es un sitio web de humor. Existe consenso en que Cracked.com no es, en general, confiable. Cuando Cracked.com cita otra fuente para un artículo, es preferible que los editores lean y citen esa fuente en su lugar.	1
La cuna WP:THECRAMDLE  📌		2024  2024 2024 1	2024	The Cradle es una revista en línea que se centra en temas relacionados con Asia occidental y Oriente Medio. En la convocatoria de propuestas de 2024, quedó obsoleta debido a que en su historial publicaba teorías conspirativas y hacía referencias a otras fuentes obsoletas. Los editores consideran que The Cradle tiene mala reputación en materia de verificación de datos.	1
Base de datos de Crunch WP:CRUNCHBASE  📌		2019  2019 2021 1 2	2019	En la convocatoria de propuestas de 2019, hubo consenso en descontinuar Crunchbase, pero también en seguir permitiendo enlaces externos al sitio web. Una proporción significativa de los datos de Crunchbase son contenidos generados por los usuarios . Los detalles técnicos son que solo se incluyen en User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList , por lo que las citas a Crunchbase solo se revierten automáticamente si están en etiquetas de referencia además de cumplir con los criterios estándar.	1
La Bestia Diaria WP:DAILYBEAST  📌		1 2 3 4 5 6	2023	No hay consenso sobre la fiabilidad de The Daily Beast . La mayoría de los editores consideran que The Daily Beast es una fuente parcial o con opiniones . Algunos editores recomiendan tener especial cuidado al utilizar esta fuente para afirmaciones controvertidas sobre hechos relacionados con personas vivas .	1
El llamador diario WP:DAILYCALLER  📌		2019  2019 2019 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8	2019	The Daily Caller fue descontinuado en la RfC de 2019, que mostró consenso en que el sitio publica información falsa o inventada.	1   2   3
El punto diario WP:DAILYDOT  📌		2022 10 [pág.]	2022	No hay consenso sobre la fiabilidad general de The Daily Dot , aunque se considera que es adecuado para citar afirmaciones de hechos no controvertidas. Algunos editores han objetado su tono o lo consideran parcial o dogmático ; existe un consenso en la comunidad sobre que se debe utilizar la atribución en temas en los que se sabe que la fuente es parcial o cuando la fuente se utiliza para respaldar afirmaciones de hechos controvertidas. Considere si el contenido de esta publicación tiene el peso debido antes de citarlo en un artículo.	1
Diario Expreso WP:DAILYEXPRESS  📌		1 2 3 4 5 6	2020	El Daily Express es un periódico sensacionalista que tiene varias similitudes con el Daily Mail y, en general, se lo considera poco confiable.	1   2
Diario Kos WP:DAILYKOS  📌		1 2 3	2017	Existe consenso en que, en general, se debe evitar utilizar Daily Kos como fuente de información, especialmente para temas políticos controvertidos, para los que se dispone de mejores fuentes. Como blog activista que publica contenido generado por los usuarios con un punto de vista progresista , muchos editores consideran que Daily Kos confunde de manera inapropiada las noticias y las opiniones.	1
Correo diario ( MailOnline ) WP:DAILYMAIL  📌 WP:RSPDM  📌		2017 2019 2020    54 [q] 2018 6 [r]	2024	En la RfC de 2017, el Daily Mail fue la primera fuente que se desaprobó en Wikipedia, y la decisión fue impugnada y reafirmada en la RfC de 2019. Existe consenso en que el Daily Mail (incluida su versión en línea, MailOnline ) generalmente no es confiable y su uso como referencia generalmente está prohibido, especialmente cuando existen otras fuentes que son más confiables. Como resultado, el Daily Mail no debe usarse para determinar la notoriedad, ni debe usarse como fuente en artículos. El Daily Mail tiene una "reputación de mala verificación de hechos, sensacionalismo y mentiras descaradas". El Daily Mail puede usarse en casos excepcionales en un estilo sobre uno mismo . Algunos editores consideran que el Daily Mail es confiable históricamente, por lo que se pueden usar artículos antiguos en un contexto histórico. (Tenga en cuenta que dailymail.co.uk no es confiable como fuente de contenido pasado que se publicó en el Daily Mail ). La restricción a menudo se interpreta incorrectamente como una "prohibición" del Daily Mail . La descontinuación incluye otras ediciones del Daily Mail del Reino Unido , como las ediciones irlandesa y escocesa. El Daily Mail del Reino Unido no debe confundirse con otras publicaciones denominadas Daily Mail que no están afiliadas al periódico del Reino Unido. El dominio dailymail.com lo utilizaba anteriormente el Daily Mail de Charleston , que no estaba afiliado a él , y los enlaces de referencia a esa publicación todavía están presentes.	1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13
Daily Mirror ( Espejo ) WP:DAILYMIRROR  📌		1 2 3 4 5	2020	El Daily Mirror , también conocido simplemente como The Mirror , es un periódico sensacionalista que publica periodismo sensacionalista . No hay consenso sobre si su fiabilidad es comparable a la de los tabloides británicos como el Daily Mail y The Sun.	1
Diario NK WP:DAILYNK  📌		2022	2022	Daily NK es un periódico en línea con sede en Corea del Sur que informa sobre historias que ocurren dentro de Corea del Norte . No hay consenso sobre si se debe descartar o utilizar con atribución. Existe consenso en que esta fuente, así como todas las demás fuentes que informan sobre Corea del Norte, generalmente no son confiables. Sin embargo, debido a la escasez de información de fácil acceso sobre Corea del Norte, así como a la percepción de que Daily NK no es menos confiable que otras fuentes sobre el tema, se puede utilizar como fuente, aunque con mucha cautela.	1
WP diario de Sabah : DAILYSABAH  📌		1	2020	Daily Sabah es considerado un medio de propaganda que publica noticias a favor del gobierno turco que tienen como objetivo fortalecer el gobierno de Erdoğan , difundir la occidentalofobia y promover las políticas del gobierno turco. Los editores también señalaron que Daily Sabah publica información falsa, como la negación del genocidio armenio y declaraciones tergiversadas. Algunos editores consideran que es lo suficientemente confiable como para citar el punto de vista del gobierno turco con atribución en el texto y eventos no controvertidos relacionados con Turquía.	1
Daily Star (Reino Unido) WP:DAILYSTAR  📌		2020  2020 1 2 3 4	2020	El Daily Star fue descartado en la convocatoria de cambios de 2020 debido a su reputación de publicar información falsa o inventada.	1   2
The Daily Telegraph (Reino Unido) ( The Telegraph , The Sunday Telegraph ) (excluyendo temas transgénero) WP: TELEGRAPH  📌		2022 22 [s]	2024	Existe consenso en que The Daily Telegraph (también conocido como The Telegraph ) es, en general, confiable. Algunos editores creen que The Daily Telegraph es parcial o tiene opiniones políticas. No relacionado con The Daily Telegraph (Sydney) .	1
The Daily Telegraph (Reino Unido) ( The Telegraph , The Sunday Telegraph ) (temas transgénero)		2024 1	2024	En lo que respecta a las cuestiones transgénero, no hay consenso sobre la fiabilidad de The Daily Telegraph . Los editores consideran que The Telegraph es parcial o tiene opiniones sobre el tema, y ​​sus declaraciones deben atribuirse a The Daily Telegraph .	1
El Daily Wire		2021 1 2 3 4	2021	Existe un fuerte consenso en cuanto a que The Daily Wire no es, en general, confiable en lo que respecta a la información veraz. Los detractores señalan la tendencia del sitio a compartir historias sacadas de contexto o verificadas incorrectamente. [12] [13]	1
Fecha límite Hollywood WP:RSPDEADLINE  📌		1 2 3 4 5 6	2019	Deadline Hollywood se considera generalmente confiable para artículos relacionados con el entretenimiento.	1   2
De Debrett		2020 1	2020	Existe consenso en que Debrett's es confiable en cuanto a información genealógica. Sin embargo, su sección "Gente de hoy", que ya no existe, se considera que no es lo suficientemente independiente, ya que los detalles se solicitaron a los sujetos. Los editores también han expresado su preocupación por el hecho de que esta sección incluyera cobertura paga.	1
¡Democracia Ahora!		1 2 3 4 5	2013	No existe consenso sobre la fiabilidad de Democracy Now!. La mayoría de los editores consideran que Democracy Now! es una fuente partidista cuyas declaraciones deben ser atribuidas . El contenido sindicado publicado por Democracy Now! debe evaluarse en función de la fiabilidad de su editor original.	1
Noticias Deseret		1 2 3 4	2022	El Deseret News se considera generalmente confiable para noticias locales. Es propiedad de una subsidiaria de La Iglesia de Jesucristo de los Santos de los Últimos Días , y no hay consenso sobre si el Deseret News es independiente de la Iglesia SUD . Las declaraciones de la publicación sobre temas relacionados con la Iglesia SUD deben atribuirse a . El Deseret News incluye un suplemento , Church News , que se considera una fuente primaria como publicación oficial de la Iglesia SUD.	1   2
Deutsche Welle (DW, DW-TV )		1 2 3	2022	Deutsche Welle es una emisora ​​internacional estatal alemana . Se considera, en general, fiable. Algunos editores consideran que la calidad de la DW depende de la edición en el idioma.	1
Dexerto WP:DEXERTO  📌		2019 2023  1 2	2023	Dexerto es un sitio web que cubre noticias sobre videojuegos, personalidades de Internet y entretenimiento. Los editores coinciden en que es una publicación sensacionalista que rara vez se dedica al periodismo serio; si bien puede usarse como fuente caso por caso (algunos editores argumentan a favor de la confiabilidad de su cobertura de deportes electrónicos), generalmente es mejor encontrar una fuente alternativa y rara vez es adecuado para su uso en BLP o para establecer notoriedad .	1
Espía digital		1 2 3 4 5 A	2012	Existe consenso en que Digital Spy es, en general, confiable en lo que respecta al entretenimiento y la cultura popular. Considere si la información de esta fuente tiene el peso debido o indebido .	1   2
Tendencias digitales		1 A	2023	Existe consenso en que Digital Trends es, en general, confiable debido a sus estándares editoriales y su reputación. Esto no se aplica al contenido patrocinado, que se marca con letra pequeña debajo del título de la imagen. Algunos editores expresaron su preocupación por la conexión del sitio con Valnet, que administra varias granjas de contenido.	1
El Diplomático WP:THEDIPLOMAT  📌		1 2	2020	Existe consenso en que The Diplomat es, en general, confiable. Los artículos de opinión deben ser evaluados por WP:RSOPINION y WP:NEWSBLOG . Algunos editores han expresado preocupación por su confiabilidad en temas relacionados con Corea del Norte.	1
Discogs WP:DISCOGS  📌 WP:RSDISCOGS  📌		2019-2024 ​  1 2 3 4 5 6	2024	El contenido de Discogs es generado por los usuarios y, por lo tanto, no suele ser confiable. En una convocatoria de propuestas de 2019 hubo consenso en contra de descontinuar Discogs, ya que los editores señalaron que los enlaces externos al sitio podrían ser apropiados.	1
Distraer WP:DISTRACTIFY  📌		1 2 3	2023	Existe consenso en que Distractify no es, en general, confiable. Los editores creen que Distractify publica chismes comunes y corrientes que no están claramente generados por los usuarios ni escritos por miembros del personal. Los editores deberían abstenerse especialmente de usarlo en BLP .	1
La revisión de Dorchester		2024	2024	Existe consenso en que The Dorchester Review no es, en general, confiable, ya que no es revisada por pares por la comunidad académica en general. Tiene mala reputación en lo que respecta a la verificación de datos y carece de un equipo editorial. La fuente aún puede usarse en algunas circunstancias, por ejemplo, para autodescripciones no controvertidas y contenido escrito por expertos en la materia establecidos.	1
Dotdash Meredith (About.com, The Balance, Lifewire , The Spruce, ThoughtCo, TripSavvy, Verywell )		2018 +17 [t]	2020	Dotdash Meredith (antes conocida como About.com) opera una red de sitios web. Los editores consideran que la calidad de los artículos publicados por About.com es inconsistente. Algunos editores recomiendan tratar los artículos de About.com como fuentes autopublicadas y solo usar artículos publicados por expertos establecidos. About.com también sirvió anteriormente como un espejo de Wikipedia ; el uso de contenido republicado de Wikipedia se considera una fuente circular . En 2017, el sitio web About.com dejó de funcionar y parte de su contenido se trasladó a las marcas de sitios web actuales de Dotdash Meredith. [14] [15] Debido al abuso persistente, verywellfamily.com, verywellhealth.com y verywellmind.com están en la lista negra de spam de Wikipedia y los enlaces deben estar en la lista blanca antes de poder usarse. Consulte también: Investopedia.	1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10
El economista		2022 1 2 3 4 5	2024	La mayoría de los editores consideran que The Economist es , en general, confiable. Sus artículos de noticias aparecen sin firma y están escritos en tono editorial. En estos artículos, los editores de Wikipedia deben usar su criterio para discernir el contenido factual (en el que, en general, se puede confiar) del contenido analítico, que debe usarse de acuerdo con la directriz sobre opinión en fuentes confiables . Sus columnas de comentarios seudónimas y otros artículos de opinión también deben manejarse de acuerdo con esta directriz.	1
La Intifada Electrónica ( IE )		2024 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8	2024	Existe consenso en que The Electronic Intifada no es, en general, confiable en lo que respecta a su reputación de precisión, verificación de datos y corrección de errores. Casi todos los editores consideran que The Electronic Intifada es una fuente parcial y opinativa , por lo que sus declaraciones deberían atribuirse a la fuente .	1
Encyclopædia Britannica ( Encyclopædia Britannica Online ) WP:BRITANNICA  📌		15 [u]	2022	No hay consenso sobre la fiabilidad de la Encyclopædia Britannica (incluida su edición en línea, Encyclopædia Britannica Online ). Su proceso editorial incluye la comprobación de datos y la publicación de correcciones. La Encyclopædia Britannica es una fuente terciaria . Algunas entradas en línea están escritas por expertos en la materia, mientras que otras están escritas por autónomos o editores, y las entradas deben evaluarse de forma individual. Los editores prefieren fuentes secundarias fiables a la Encyclopædia Britannica cuando están disponibles. De 2009 a 2010, la Encyclopædia Britannica Online aceptó una pequeña cantidad de envíos de contenido del público en general. Aunque estos envíos se someten al proceso editorial de la enciclopedia, algunos editores creen que el contenido de colaboradores que no son miembros del personal es menos fiable que el contenido de la enciclopedia escrito por el personal. La autoría del contenido se revela en el historial del artículo.	1
Enciclopedia Iranica		1 2 3 4 5	2022	La Encyclopædia Iranica se considera generalmente confiable para temas relacionados con Irán.	1
Enciclopedia Metallum ( Metal Archives , MA ) WP:METALLUM  📌		1 2	2016	La Enciclopedia Metallum es generada por los usuarios , por lo que es mejor evitarla. Se encuentra en Wikipedia:Álbumes/Fuentes de WikiProject § Fuentes no confiables .	1
Enciclopedia Astronáutica		2023	2023	Encyclopedia Astronautica es un sitio web sobre la historia espacial. Una convocatoria de propuestas de 2023 no encontró consenso sobre la fiabilidad del sitio. Parece haber consenso en que se trata de un recurso valioso, pero carece de supervisión editorial, contiene errores y ya no se actualiza. Se debe tener cuidado al utilizar esta fuente.	1
Engadget		1 A	2012	Engadget se considera generalmente confiable en lo que respecta a artículos relacionados con la tecnología. Sus afirmaciones deben ser atribuidas .	1
Semanal de entretenimiento ( EW )		1 2 3 A	2018	Entertainment Weekly se considera generalmente confiable para artículos relacionados con el entretenimiento. No hay consenso sobre si es confiable para otros temas.	1
Emprendedor ( Empresario India )		2020 1	2021	No hay consenso sobre la fiabilidad de Entrepreneur Magazine , aunque sí hay consenso en que los artículos de los "colaboradores" en la publicación deben considerarse autopublicados , de forma similar a los colaboradores de Forbes.com. Los editores no aportaron demasiadas pruebas de falsificación en sus artículos, pero les preocupaba que su cobertura tendiera al periodismo y pudiera incluir artículos pagados que no se divulgaran correctamente.	1
La Gran Época ( New Tang Dynasty Television , Vision Times , Vision China Times ) WP:EPOCHTIMES  📌		2019  2019 2020 2023 2023 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8	2022	The Epoch Times fue desaprobado en la convocatoria de 2019. La mayoría de los editores clasifican a The Epoch Times como un grupo de apoyo a Falun Gong y consideran que la publicación es una fuente tendenciosa o con opiniones que con frecuencia publica teorías conspirativas como si fueran hechos.	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
Etnicidad de las celebridades		1 2 3 4	2024	Existe consenso en que Ethnicity of Celebs (ethnicelebs.com) generalmente no es confiable como contenido generado por el usuario y no garantiza su precisión ni verificación de datos.	1
Estándar de la tarde ( London Evening Standard ) WP:THESTANDARD  📌 WP:STANDARDUK  📌		1 2 3 4 5 6	2018	No hay consenso sobre la fiabilidad del Evening Standard . A pesar de ser un periódico gratuito, en general se lo considera más confiable que la mayoría de los tabloides británicos y los periódicos de mercado medio .	1
Examinador.com		2009 1 2 3 4 5 6 7	2014	Debido al abuso persistente, Examiner.com está en la lista negra de spam de Wikipedia y los enlaces deben incluirse en la lista blanca antes de poder usarse. Examiner.com se considera una fuente autopublicada , ya que tiene una supervisión editorial mínima. La mayoría de los editores creen que el sitio tiene una mala reputación en cuanto a precisión y verificación de datos. Antes de 2004, el dominio examiner.com lo usaba The San Francisco Examiner , que se ha mudado a un dominio diferente. Examiner.com se cerró en 2016; el contenido del sitio web ya no es accesible a menos que esté archivado.	1
Facebook WP:RSPFB  📌 WP:RSPFACEBOOK  📌		2020 27 [v]	2021	Facebook se considera poco confiable en general porque es una fuente autopublicada sin supervisión editorial. En la convocatoria de propuestas de 2020, hubo consenso en agregar un filtro de edición para advertir a los usuarios que intentan citar a Facebook como fuente, y no hubo consenso sobre si las citas de Facebook deberían revertirse automáticamente con XLinkBot .	1
Imparcialidad y precisión en los informes (FAIR)		2010 1 2 3 4 5	2014	No existe consenso sobre la fiabilidad de la imparcialidad y la precisión de los informes. Sin embargo, existe un fuerte consenso en que las publicaciones de FAIR no deben utilizarse para respaldar afirmaciones excepcionales sobre personas vivas . La mayoría de los editores consideran que FAIR es una fuente sesgada o con opiniones , cuyas declaraciones deben atribuirse y, en general, tratarse como opiniones .	1
Búsqueda familiar		1 2 3 4 5 6	2018	FamilySearch opera un sitio de genealogía que incorpora una gran cantidad de contenido generado por los usuarios . Los editores no ven evidencia de que FamilySearch realice una verificación de datos y creen que el sitio tiene una reputación cuestionable en cuanto a precisión. FamilySearch también alberga documentos de fuentes primarias , como certificados de nacimiento, que pueden usarse en situaciones limitadas, así como una gran colección de libros digitalizados, cuya confiabilidad debe evaluarse por sí sola. Cuando utilice documentos de fuentes primarias de FamilySearch, siga WP:BLPPRIMARY y evite interpretarlos con investigaciones originales .	1
Cumpleaños famosos WP:FAMOUSBIRTHDAYS  📌 WP:FAMOUS BIRTHDAYS  📌		2019 1 2 3 4 5	2019	Debido al abuso persistente, Famous Birthdays está en la lista negra de spam de Wikipedia y los enlaces deben incluirse en la lista blanca antes de poder usarse. Existe consenso en que Famous Birthdays no es, en general, confiable. Famous Birthdays no proporciona fuentes para su contenido, no afirma tener un equipo editorial ni realiza comprobaciones de datos. No utilice este sitio para obtener información sobre personas vivas .	1
Wikis de Fandom (Wikia, Wikicities) WP:FANDOM  📌 WP:RSPWIKIA  📌		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A	2019	Los wikis de Fandom (anteriormente Wikia y Wikicities) se consideran generalmente poco fiables porque los wikis abiertos son fuentes autopublicadas . Aunque citar a Wikia como fuente va en contra de la política, copiar contenido de Fandom en Wikipedia está permitido si se publica bajo una licencia compatible (algunos wikis pueden usar licencias como CC BY-NC y CC BY-NC-ND, que son incompatibles). Utilice la plantilla {{ Contenido de Fandom }} para proporcionar la atribución necesaria en estos casos y asegúrese de que el artículo cumpla con las políticas y pautas de Wikipedia después de copiarlo.	1   2   3   4
El federalista		2021 1 2 3	2021	El Federalista no suele ser confiable en lo que respecta a los hechos debido a su naturaleza partidista y a su promoción de teorías conspirativas . Sin embargo, puede ser útil para opiniones atribuidas .	1
El diario Financial Times ( FT )		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8	2018	El Financial Times se considera generalmente confiable.	1
Encuentra una tumba		1 2 3 4 5 6	2021	El contenido de Find a Grave es generado por los usuarios , [16] y por lo tanto se considera generalmente poco confiable. A veces, se pueden incluir enlaces a Find a Grave en la sección de enlaces externos de los artículos, cuando el sitio ofrece contenido adicional valioso, como imágenes cuyo uso no está permitido en Wikipedia. Asegúrese de que la página Find a Grave no contenga contenido prohibido, como violaciones de derechos de autor .	1
Encuentra mi pasado		1 2 3 4 5	2019	Findmypast es un sitio de genealogía que alberga documentos de fuentes primarias transcritas , lo cual está cubierto por WP:BLPPRIMARY . Los registros de certificados de nacimiento y defunción del sitio incluyen la fecha de registro del evento, no la fecha del evento en sí. Los editores advierten contra la interpretación de los documentos con la investigación original y señalan que el proceso de transcripción puede introducir errores. Findmypast también alberga árboles genealógicos generados por los usuarios , que no son confiables. La Biblioteca de Wikipedia anteriormente ofrecía acceso a Findmypast.	1   2
Banderas del mundo (FOTW) WP:FOTW  📌		1 2 3 4 A	2013	Banderas del mundo ha sido descartada como una fuente poco fiable en general. Aunque algunas de sus páginas pueden hacer referencia a fuentes fiables, se trata de contenido autopublicado sin supervisión editorial, y los anfitriones "renuncian a cualquier responsabilidad sobre la veracidad y exactitud de los contenidos del sitio web".	1   2
Flickr WP:RSPFLICKR  📌		1 2 3	2020	La mayoría de las fotos de Flickr son anónimas, autopublicadas y no verificables, y no deben usarse para verificar información en artículos (aunque las fotos de Flickr con la licencia correspondiente pueden usarse para ilustrar artículos). El contenido subido desde una cuenta oficial verificada, como la de una organización de noticias, puede considerarse originario del cargador y, por lo tanto, hereda su nivel de confiabilidad. Tenga en cuenta que no se pueden hacer interpretaciones a partir de las fotos de Flickr, incluso de fuentes verificadas, porque se trata de una investigación original .	1
Forbes WP: FORBES  📌		+10 [w]	2024	Forbes y Forbes.com incluyen artículos escritos por su personal, que se redactan con supervisión editorial y, por lo general, son confiables. Forbes también publica varias listas de los "mejores" a los que se puede hacer referencia en los artículos. Como se indica a continuación, esto excluye los artículos escritos por los colaboradores de Forbes.com (o "colaboradores sénior") y los asesores de Forbes .	1
Colaboradores de Forbes.com WP:FORBESCON  📌		16 [x]	2022	La mayor parte del contenido de Forbes.com está escrito por colaboradores o "colaboradores senior" con una supervisión editorial mínima y, por lo general, no es confiable. Los editores muestran un consenso para tratar los artículos de los colaboradores de Forbes.com como fuentes autopublicadas , a menos que el artículo haya sido escrito por un experto en la materia . Los artículos de los colaboradores de Forbes.com nunca deben usarse para afirmaciones de terceros sobre personas vivas . Los Consejos de Forbes, al ser de pago por publicación y carecer de supervisión de manera similar, también entran en esta categoría. Los artículos que también se han publicado en la edición impresa de Forbes están excluidos y se consideran generalmente confiables . Verifique la firma para determinar si un artículo está escrito por un miembro del "personal de Forbes", "colaborador", "colaborador senior" o "suscriptor". Además, verifique debajo de la firma para ver si se publicó en una edición impresa de Forbes . Anteriormente, los artículos de los colaboradores de Forbes.com podían identificarse por su URL que comenzaba con "forbes.com/sites"; La URL ya no los distingue, ya que los artículos del personal de Forbes también se han movido a "/sites". Véase también: Forbes.	1
Asesor de Forbes		2021	2021	Los artículos de Forbes Advisor no diferencian los anuncios del contenido normal y contienen una exención de responsabilidad que no garantiza ni puede garantizar que la información proporcionada sea completa y no realiza declaraciones ni garantías en relación con ella, ni con su precisión o aplicabilidad . Dichos artículos se pueden distinguir del contenido de Forbes por tener "Forbes ADVISOR" en el encabezado y tener URL que comiencen con "forbes.com/advisor".	1
Fox News [y] (noticias excluyendo política y ciencia) WP:FOXNEWS  📌		2010 2020 2023    14 [en]	2024	Históricamente, ha habido consenso en que Fox News es generalmente confiable para la cobertura de noticias sobre temas distintos a la política y la ciencia. Sin embargo, muchos editores expresaron inquietudes sobre la confiabilidad de Fox News para cualquier tema en una RFC de 2023. Sin embargo, no se llegó a un consenso formal al respecto. Véase también: Fox News (política y ciencia), Fox News (programas de entrevistas).	1   2
Fox News [y] (política y ciencia) WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS  📌		2010 2020 2022 2023      26 [aa]	2024	Existe consenso en que Fox News no es, en general, confiable para informar sobre política, especialmente a partir de noviembre de 2020. En materia de ciencia y de política anterior a noviembre de 2020, existe consenso en que la confiabilidad de Fox News no está clara y que se aplican consideraciones adicionales a su uso. Como resultado, Fox News se considera marginalmente confiable y, en general, no califica como una "fuente de alta calidad" a los efectos de fundamentar afirmaciones excepcionales en estas áreas temáticas. Los editores perciben que Fox News es parcial o tiene opiniones en cuanto a política; utilice la atribución en el texto para las opiniones. Véase también: Fox News (noticias que excluyen política y ciencia), Fox News (programas de entrevistas).	1
Fox News [y] (programas de entrevistas)		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9	2024	Los programas de entrevistas de Fox News, incluidos Hannity , Tucker Carlson Tonight , The Ingraham Angle y Fox & Friends , no deben usarse para afirmaciones de hechos, pero a veces pueden usarse para opiniones atribuidas . Véase también: Fox News (noticias que excluyen política y ciencia), Fox News (política y ciencia).	1
Revista FrontPage ( FPM , FrontPageMag.com) WP:FPM  📌		2020  2020 2020 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9	2022	En la convocatoria de propuestas de 2020, hubo un consenso unánime para desaprobar FrontPage Magazine . Los editores consideran que la publicación en general no es confiable y creen que sus opiniones deberían tener poco o ningún peso . La publicación se considera parcial o dogmática .	1   2
Desarrollador de juegos ( Gamasutra )		1 2 A	2020	Game Developer se considera generalmente confiable para temas relacionados con los videojuegos.	1   2
Informador de juegos		1 2 A B C D	2021	Game Informer se considera generalmente confiable para los videojuegos.	1
El Gateway Pundit ( TGP )		2019  2019 2020 1	2019	The Gateway Pundit fue desaprobado en la convocatoria de propuestas de 2019, que mostró consenso en cuanto a que el sitio es inaceptable como fuente. No es confiable para afirmaciones de hechos y tiende a publicar artículos engañosos y a informar teorías conspirativas como si fueran hechos.	1
Gawker WP:GAWKER  📌		2019 1 2 3 4 5 6 7	2019	Gawker (2002–2016) fue un blog de chismes que publicaba con frecuencia artículos sobre rumores y especulaciones sin nombrar a los autores. Cuando Gawker es la única fuente de información, es probable que la información constituya un peso indebido , especialmente cuando el tema es una persona viva . Cuando otra fuente confiable cita información de Gawker, es preferible citar esa fuente en su lugar. En la RfC de 2019, no hubo consenso sobre si Gawker debería ser desaprobado. En 2021, la publicación se relanzó bajo Bustle Digital Group y posteriormente se cerró en 2023. La segunda encarnación no ha sido discutida en RSN.	1
Gazeta Wyborcza		1 2	2021	Existe consenso en que Gazeta Wyborcza es, en general, un periódico fiable. Algunos editores manifiestan preocupación por su tendencia sensacionalista en los últimos años.	1
Geni.com		1 2 3 4 5	2019	Geni.com es un sitio de genealogía que se considera poco confiable en general porque es una wiki abierta , que es un tipo de fuente autopublicada . Los documentos de fuentes primarias de Geni.com pueden usarse bajo WP:BLPPRIMARY para respaldar fuentes secundarias confiables , pero evite interpretarlos con investigaciones originales .	1
Genio (Genio del Rap) WP:GENIUS  📌		1 2	2019	Las letras de las canciones, las anotaciones y las descripciones de Genius son en su mayoría contenido generado por los usuarios y, por lo tanto, no suelen ser fiables. No hay consenso sobre la fiabilidad de los artículos, las entrevistas y los vídeos producidos por Genius. Los comentarios verificados de los músicos se incluyen en WP:BLPSELFPUB y el uso de dichos comentarios debe ajustarse a esa política.	1   2
Sistema de Información de Nombres Geográficos (GNIS) (nombres y lugares)		2021 1	2022	El Sistema de Información de Nombres Geográficos es una base de datos geográfica con sede en los Estados Unidos. En general, es confiable en lo que respecta a los nombres de lugares y las ubicaciones/coordenadas. Los editores deben tener cuidado de que el GNIS utilice una convención diferente para sus coordenadas, utilizando una característica particular de una ubicación en lugar del centro geométrico que utilizan la mayoría de los WikiProjects.	1
Sistema de información de nombres geográficos (GNIS) (clases de entidades)		2021	2021	El Sistema de Información de Nombres Geográficos es una base de datos geográficos con sede en los Estados Unidos. Por lo general, no es confiable en lo que respecta a sus clases de características y no se debe utilizar para determinar la notoriedad de las características geográficas , ya que no cumple con el requisito de reconocimiento legal .	1
Servidor de nombres GEOnet (GNS) (nombres y ubicaciones)		2021	2021	The GEOnet Names Server is a United States-based geographical database that covers non-US countries. It is considered to be close to generally reliable for its place names and locations/coordinates, though there are concerns that GNS may not always be accurate and sometimes report the existence of places that do not even exist. Editors are advised to exercise caution when using it.	1
GEOnet Names Server (GNS) (feature classes)		2021	2021	The GEOnet Names Server is a United States-based geographical database that covers non-US countries. It is generally unreliable for its feature classes and it should not be used to determine the notability of geographic features as it does not meet the legal recognition requirement.	1
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".[17]	1
Global Times (Huanqiu Shibao) WP:GLOBALTIMES 📌		2020  2020 20201 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[ab]	2022	globalsecurity.org is an unreliable user-contributed and scraper site given to plagiarism. In the 2022 deprecation 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
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)		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  2020 20201	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
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 📌		19[ac]	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		10[ad]	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		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[ae]	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)		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
Healthline WP:HEALTHLINE 📌		2023  20231 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 as a hazard to 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 Hill WP:THEHILL 📌		10[af]	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 2020	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[ag]	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[ah]	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[ai]	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. 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[aj]	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 +32[ak]	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
The Independent WP:THEINDEPENDENT 📌 WP:INDYUK 📌		2021 123456789	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)		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
InfoWars (NewsWars, Banned.video, National File) WP:INFOWARS 📌		2018  2018  2018  20241	2018	Due to persistent abuse, InfoWars is on both the Wikipedia spam blacklist and the Wikimedia global spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. InfoWars was deprecated in the 2018 RfC, which showed unanimous consensus that the site publishes fake news and conspiracy theories. The use of InfoWars as a reference should be generally prohibited, especially when other sources exist that are more reliable. InfoWars should not be used for determining notability, or used as a secondary source in articles.	1   2   3   4   5   6
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
Insider (excluding culture) (Business Insider, Markets Insider, Tech Insider) WP:BI 📌 WP:BUSINESSINSIDER 📌		2020  2022 15[al]	2024	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)		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 12345678	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		2021 1 2 3 4	2022	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. There is a consensus that Jacobin is a generally reliable but biased source. Editors should take care to adhere to the neutral point of view policy when using Jacobin as a source in articles, for example by quoting and attributing statements that present its authors' opinions, and ensuring that due weight is given to their perspective amongst others'. The reliability of articles authored by Branko Marcetic has been considered questionable.	1   2
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 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
The Jewish Chronicle (The JC)		2021  20241 2 3 4 5	2024	There is consensus that The Jewish Chronicle is generally reliable for news, particularly in its pre-2010 reporting. There is no consensus on whether The Jewish Chronicle is reliable for topics related to the British Left, Muslims, Islam, and Palestine/Palestinians; there is also 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)		2020 1 2 3 4 5 6A	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		2021  2021 20211 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[am]	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   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
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  2019 20201	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 (12 March 2014–present)		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.	1
LifeSiteNews (Campaign Life Coalition) WP:LIFESITENEWS 📌		2019  2019 2019  20211 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[an]	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
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 is an online video platform that hosts user-generated content. Many of the videos on LiveLeak are copyright violations, and should not be linked to per WP:COPYLINK. The use of LiveLeak as a primary source is questionable in most cases, as the provenance of most of the videos is unclear. LiveLeak shut down in May 2021; website content is no longer accessible unless archived.[18]	1
Los Angeles Times (L.A. Times) WP:LATIMES 📌		123456789	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
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  20201 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
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. 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
Mashable (sponsored content)		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. 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.[19]	1
MEAWW (Media Entertainment Arts WorldWide)		1 2 3	2021	MEAWW is a tabloid side 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	2021	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[ao]	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)		2010  2019  2020 6[ap]	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		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 as a secondary source for 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
Metacritic (GameRankings)		10[aq]	2017	Metacritic is considered generally reliable for its review aggregation and its news articles on film, TV, and video games. There is no consensus on whether its blog articles and critic opinion pages are generally reliable for facts. There is consensus that user reviews on Metacritic are generally unreliable, as they 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.[20][21][22]	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 📌		10[ar]	2022	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
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		2019  2019  2022 2020  2022	2019	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		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 is a British tabloid with a low circulation and readership that the New Statesman has described as "Britain's last communist newspaper".[23] 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		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		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  20191 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 a large number of conspiracy theories.	1   2   +494
NBC News		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	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 sources 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.	1
The New American		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 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		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)		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, The Verge, Vox	1   2   3   4
New York Daily News (Illustrated Daily News)		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 📌 WP:PAGESIX 📌		2020 14[as]	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 📌		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[at]	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
NewsBreak (News Break)		2020  2020 2020	2020	News Break is a news aggregator that publishes snippets of articles from other sources. In the 2020 RfC, there was consensus to deprecate News Break in favor of the original sources.	1
NewsBlaze		2021  2021 20221	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
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
News of the World WP:NEWSOFTHEWORLD 📌		2019  20201	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
Newsmax WP:NEWSMAX 📌		2020  2020 20201 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
Newsweek (pre-2013)		2019 1 2 3 4 5	2019	There is consensus that articles from Newsweek pre-2013 are generally reliable for news covered during that time. In 2011, Newsweek was a reputable magazine with only some minor problems while it was owned by The Newsweek Daily Beast Company (which also owned The Daily Beast). Blogs under Newsweek, including The Gaggle, should be handled with the WP:NEWSBLOG policy. See also: Newsweek (2013–present).	1
Newsweek (2013–present) WP:NEWSWEEK 📌		2019 11[au]	2024	Unlike articles before 2013, Newsweek articles since 2013 are not generally reliable. From 2013 to 2018, Newsweek was owned and operated 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)		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)		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  2019 20201 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 is generally reliable for news and statements of fact. NPR's opinion pieces should only be used with attribution.	1
Occupy Democrats (Washington Press)		2018  2018  2023 2020  2023	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  2024 20241	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  2019 20201	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	2019	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 (The Public Broadcasting Service)		1 2 3 4 5 6	2021	PBS is considered generally reliable by editors.	1
Peerage websites (self-published)		2020  2020 12[av] 2020 2020  2020	2020	Two RfCs found consensus that certain self-published peerage websites are not reliable for genealogical information and should be deprecated. See § Self-published peerage websites for the full list.	List
People		2013 1 2 34 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
PinkNews WP:PINKNEWS 📌		2020 10[aw]	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
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
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
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		2021 1 2 3 4 5 6	2021	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. 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
Polygon		1 2	2020	Polygon is considered generally reliable for video games and pop culture related topics. See also: The Verge, Vox, New York	1
The Post Millennial WP:POSTMIL 📌		2020 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
Preprints WP:RSNPREPRINTS 📌 WP:ARXIV 📌 WP:BIORXIV 📌 WP:MEDRXIV 📌		10+[ax]	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).	1   2   3
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
Press TV WP:PRESSTV 📌		2020  2021  2021 20211 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,[24] 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 📌		26 July 2023  2023 2023 20211 2 3	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 WP:ABOUTSELF claims. Citations to O'Keefe's work in any medium and claims based on any such citations should be removed.	1   2
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[ay]	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		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: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 📌		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  2019 20201 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)		1 2	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		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
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
Red Ventures		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).
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
Republic TV (Republic World) WP:REPUBLICTV 📌		2021  2021 20211 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, AllGame, All Media Guide, AllRovi) WP:ALLMUSIC 📌		28[az]	2024	RhythmOne (who acquired All Media Guide, formerly AllRovi) operates the websites AllMusic, AllMovie, 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 sidebar. Listings without accompanying prose do not count toward notability.	1   2   3
RIA Novosti WP:RIANOVOSTI 📌		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8	2023	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	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)		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 📌 WP:ROTTEN TOMATOES 📌		2023 +16[ba]	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 4[bb]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 2020 2022 2024	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
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[bc]	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 📌		2019 1 2 3	2021	Science-Based Medicine is considered generally reliable, as it has a credible editorial board, publishes a robust set of editorial guidelines, and has been cited by other reliable sources. Editors do not consider Science-Based Medicine a self-published source, but it is also not a peer-reviewed publication with respect to WP:MEDRS. Since it often covers fringe material, parity of sources may be relevant.	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		2021 1	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.	1
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
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 scriptual texts should be allowed under MOS:PLOTSOURCE.	—
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 📌		1 2 3	2023	Simple Flying is generally unreliable as a blog without a reputation for fact checking or reliability.	1
Sixth Tone (general topics)		2020	2020	Sixth Tone is usable for general non-political topics, such as Chinese society and culture. See also: Sixth Tone (politics).	1
Sixth Tone (politics)		2020	2020	Sixth Tone is published by 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
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)		1 2 3	2022	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[bd]	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
South China Morning Post (SCMP, Sunday Morning Post) WP:SCMP 📌		2020 123	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 📌		+20[be]	2022	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
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[bf]	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
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  2020 2022 2023 8[bg]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,[25] 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
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		2021 1	2024	The Straits Times is the largest newspaper in Singapore. There is consensus that it is generally reliable so long as the Singapore government is not involved in its coverage. However, since Singapore has a poor record on freedom of speech and press, and given known practices of self-censorship and political meddling into coverage, news related to Singapore politics, particularly for contentious claims, should be taken with a grain of salt.	1
The Sun (UK) (The Sun on Sunday, The Irish Sun, The Scottish Sun, The U.S. Sun) WP:THESUN 📌		2019  2024 16[bh] 2019 2020  2020  2021	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		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  2019 20201	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
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	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 verifiability, but may be less useful for the purpose of determining notability.	1
TED		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  2019 20201 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
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 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.	1
Time		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[bi]	2023	The Times, including its sister paper The Sunday Times, is considered generally reliable.	1   2   3
The Times of India (post-1950) (TOI) WP:TOI 📌		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[bj]	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
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 📌		49[bk]	2024	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 related to living persons.	1
The Unz Review WP:UNZ 📌		2021  2021 2021 1 2	2024	The Unz Review was deprecated by snowball clause in the 2021 discussion. 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		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		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.	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  2019 20191	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		1 2 A B	2015	VentureBeat is considered generally reliable for articles relating to businesses, technology and video games.	1
The Verge		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, New York	1
Veterans Today		2019  20191 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
VGChartz		2019 +10[bl]	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.[26] 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 📌		16[bm]	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
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 123456789	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 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 does not always delineate reporting and opinion content or that it is a partisan source in the field of politics. See also: Polygon, 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		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
Washington Free Beacon WP:FREEBEACON 📌		1 2 3	2020	Most editors consider the Washington Free Beacon to be generally unreliable as a source, particularly for material about BLPs or political topics. There was no consensus to deprecate it in a 2020 discussion.	1
The Washington Post (The Post, WaPo, TWP) WP:WAPO 📌		20[bn]	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		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
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 magazine was published from 1995-2018.	1
The Western Journal (Western Journalism)		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
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.	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[bo]	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[bp]	2024	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.[27] 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)		7[bq]	2018	Wired magazine is considered generally reliable for science and technology.	1   2
WordPress.com		16[br]	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[bs] 2018 2019	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[bt]	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
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		+12[bu]	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 📌		2020 +34[bv]	2024	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 WP:COPYLINK. See also WP:YOUTUBE and WP:VIDEOLINK.	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	2024	ZDNet was acquired by digital marketing company Red Ventures in October 2020. There is consensus that ZDNet, along with other online properties of Red Ventures, is generally unreliable. Editors express concern that Red Ventures, as a matter of policy, uses AI-authored content on its properties in a non-transparent and unreliable manner.	1
Zero Hedge (ZeroHedge, ZH) WP:ZEROHEDGE 📌		2020  2020 20201 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