The following presents a non-exhaustive list of sources whose reliability and use on Wikipedia are frequently discussed. This list summarizes prior consensus and consolidates links to the most in-depth and recent discussions from the reliable sources noticeboard and elsewhere on Wikipedia.
Context matters tremendously, and some sources may or may not be suitable for certain uses depending on the situation. When in doubt, defer to the linked discussions for more detailed information on a particular source and its use. Consensus can change, and if more recent discussions considering new evidence or arguments reach a different consensus, this list should be updated to reflect those changes.
Refer to the legend for definitions of the icons in the list, but note that the discussion summaries provide more specific guidance on sources than the icons in the "Status" column. When in doubt, defer to the linked discussions, which provide in-depth arguments on when it is appropriate to use a source. The list is not an independent document; it is derived from the conclusions of the referenced discussions and formal Wikipedia:Requests for comment (RfCs). This list indexes discussions that reflect community consensus, and is intended as a useful summary.
Context matters tremendously when determining the reliability of sources, and their appropriate use on Wikipedia. Sources which are generally unreliable may still be useful in some situations. For example, even extremely low-quality sources, such as social media, may sometimes be used as self-published sources for routine information about the subjects themselves. Conversely, some otherwise high-quality sources may not be reliable for highly technical subjects that fall well outside their normal areas of expertise, and even very high-quality sources may occasionally make errors, or retract pieces they have published in their entirety. Even considering content published by a single source, some may represent high-quality professional journalism, while other content may be merely opinion pieces, which mainly represent the personal views of the author, and depend on the author's personal reliability as a source. Be especially careful with sponsored content, because while it is usually unreliable as a source, it is designed to appear otherwise.
Consider the type of content being referenced, alongside the reliability of the sources cited. Mundane, uncontroversial claims can be supported by lightweight sources, while information related to biomedicine and living persons typically require the most weighty ones.
If your source is not listed here, it only means that it has not been the subject of repeated community discussion. That may be because the source is a stellar source, and we simply never needed to talk about it because it is so obviously reliable,[a] or it could mean the source is so obviously poor it never merited discussion. It could mean that the source covers a niche topic,[b] or that it simply fell through the cracks. If you're concerned about any source being used on Wikipedia, you should review the reliable sources noticeboard (RSN), following the instructions at the top of that page, where you can "Search the noticeboard archives":
If you do not find what you're looking for, please start a discussion about it there. That is, after all, how the entries on this list got here to begin with.
You can also find a much longer list of previously discussed sources on various topics at Wikipedia:New page patrol source guide.
A source's absence from the list does not imply that it is any more or less reliable than the sources that are present. Absence just means its reliability has not been the subject of serious questioning yet. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
Consensus can change. If circumstances have evolved since the most recent discussion, new evidence has emerged that was not available at the time, or there is a new line of argument not previously covered, consider starting a discussion or a request for comment (RfC) at the reliable sources noticeboard.
Before doing so, please thoroughly familiarize yourself with content of previous discussions, and particularly the reasoning why consensus was reached, and not simply the outcome itself. Also consider when consensus was formed, and that the outcomes of very recent discussions are unlikely to be quickly overturned. Repeatedly restarting discussions where a strong and recent consensus already exists, may be considered disruptive and a type of forum shopping.
If you feel that this list inadequately summarizes the content of the linked discussions, please help to improve it, or start a discussion on the talk page, especially if your changes prove controversial. In updating this list, please be mindful that it should only summarize the content of past discussions, and should not include novel arguments not previously covered in a centralized forum. If you would like to present a novel argument or interpretation, please do so in one of these forums, so that the discussion may be linked to, and itself summarized here.
For a source to be added to this list, editors generally expect two or more significant discussions about the source's reliability in the past, or an uninterrupted request for comment on the source's reliability that took place on the reliable sources noticeboard. For a discussion to be considered significant, most editors expect no fewer than two qualifying participants for RSN discussions where the source's name is in the section heading, and no fewer than three qualifying participants for all other discussions. Qualifying participants are editors who make at least one comment on the source's reliability.
Any editor may improve this list. Please refer to the instructions for details, and ask for help on the talk page if you get stuck.
Generally reliable in its areas of expertise: Editors show consensus that the source is reliable in most cases on subject matters in its areas of expertise. The source has a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and error-correction, often in the form of a strong editorial team. It will normally still be necessary to analyze how much weight to give the source and how to describe its statements. Arguments that entirely exclude such a source must be strong and convincing, e.g., the material is contradicted by more authoritative sources, it is outside the source's accepted areas of expertise (e.g. a well-established news organization would be normally reliable for politics but not for philosophy), a specific subcategory of the source is less reliable (such as opinion pieces in a newspaper), the source is making an exceptional claim, or a different standard of sourcing is required (WP:MEDRS, WP:BLP) for the statement in question.
No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply: The source is marginally reliable (i.e. neither generally reliable nor generally unreliable), and may be usable depending on context. Editors may not have been able to agree on whether the source is appropriate, or may have agreed that it is only reliable in certain circumstances. It may be necessary to evaluate each use of the source on a case-by-case basis while accounting for specific factors unique to the source in question. Carefully review the Summary column of the table for details on the status of the source and the factors that should be considered.
Generally unreliable: Editors show consensus that the source is questionable in most cases. The source may lack an editorial team, have a poor reputation for fact-checking, fail to correct errors, be self-published, or present user-generated content. Outside exceptional circumstances, the source should normally not be used, and it should never be used for information about a living person. Even in cases where the source may be valid, it is usually better to find a more reliable source instead. If no such source exists, that may suggest that the information is inaccurate. The source may still be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions, and self-published or user-generated content authored by established subject-matter experts is also acceptable.
Deprecated: There is community consensus from a request for comment to deprecate the source. The source is considered generally unreliable, and use of the source is generally prohibited. Despite this, the source may be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions, although reliable secondary sources are still preferred. An edit filter, 869 (hist · log), may be in place to warn editors who attempt to cite the source as a reference in articles. The warning message can be dismissed. Edits that trigger the filter are tagged.
Blacklisted: Due to persistent abuse, usually in the form of external link spamming, the source is registered on the spam blacklist or the Wikimedia global spam blacklist. Edits that attempt to add this source are automatically prevented on a technical level, unless an exception is made for a specific link in the spam whitelist.
Auto-reverted: The source is listed on User:XLinkBot/RevertList and User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList. XLinkBot automatically reverts links to the source that are added by unregistered users and accounts under seven days old. This behavior is subject to restrictions, which are described in the lists themselves. Refer to the Notes column for additional exceptions.
Edit-filtered: An edit filter, 869 (hist · log), is in place to warn editors who attempt to cite the source as a reference in articles. The warning message can be dismissed. Edits that trigger the filter are tagged.
Request for comment: The linked discussion is an uninterrupted request for comment on the reliable sources noticeboard or another centralized venue suitable for determining the source's reliability. The closing statement of any RfC that is not clearly outdated should normally be considered authoritative and can only be overturned by a newer RfC.
Stale discussions: The source has not been discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard for four or more calendar years, and the consensus may have changed since the most recent discussion. However, sources that are considered generally unreliable for being self-published or presenting user-generated content are excluded. A change in consensus resulting from changes in the source itself does not apply to publications of the source from before the changes in question. Additionally, while it may be prudent to review these sources before using them, editors should generally assume that the source's previous status is still in effect if there is no reason to believe that the circumstances have changed.
Discussion in progress: The source is currently being discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard. Italic numbers represent active discussions (all discussions that are not closed or archived) on the reliable sources noticeboard. Letters represent discussions outside of the reliable sources noticeboard.Large language models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, are unreliable. While LLMs are trained on a vast amount of data and generate responses based on that, they often provide inaccurate or fictitious information. The essay Wikipedia:Large language models recommends against using LLMs to generate references. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 408 § ChatGPT.
Even legitimate Indian news organizations (print, television, and web) intermingle regular news with sponsored content and press release–based write-ups, often with inadequate or no disclosure. This is especially the case in reviews, articles about celebrities, and profiles of persons, companies and entities of borderline notability. This issue is distinct from that of journalism quality and bias, and that of sham news-style websites.
Paid news is a highly pervasive and deeply integrated practice within Indian news media. Coverage related to the above-mentioned entities requires extra vigilance given the diverse systemic approaches to paid news and the lack of clear disclosure practices in Indian media.
Exercise caution in using such sources for factual claims or to establish notability. Look at the tone and language of the article, its placement in the publication, use of generic bylines not identifying an individual reporter or reviewer, overlap in language with articles found in other publications and on other websites, and others. Examples of sponsored content include supplements published by The Times of India; the Special section of the Daily Pioneer; the Brand Wire section of ABP Live; the Press Release News or the Digpu News Network sections of Firstpost; the Business Spotlight section of Outlook; the Brand Post section of Hindustan Times; Impact feature section of India Today; the Brand Connect section of Forbes India; the Brand Solutions produced content on The Indian Express, although problematic content is not restricted to these sections alone. If in doubt, consult the reliable sources noticeboard.
See § Scriptural texts.
The following self-published peerage websites have been deprecated in requests for comment:
See § Peerage websites for the corresponding entry.
A limited number of sites are identified by credible sources (e.g. the EU's anti-disinformation East Stratcom Task Force) as disseminators of fake news. Many of these are state-sponsored. These sites are considered unreliable and should be blacklisted when identified. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 281 § RfC: Deprecation of fake news / disinformation sites.
Reputable student media outlets, such as The Harvard Crimson, are considered generally reliable sources for news on their school and local community.[28][29][30] They can sometimes be considered reliable on other topics, although professional sources are typically preferred when available.[29] However, given their local audience and lack of independence from their student body, student media does not contribute to notability for topics related to home institutions.[31]
Tabloids are types of news reporting characterized by sensationalistic stories. General consensus is that well-established tabloids should be used with care. They often repeat unverified rumors, have questionable fact-checking, and are often unsuitable for information about living people. When judging reliability of tabloids, editors often first assume its reliability to be mixed and then work it up or down. (Tabloid journalism should not be confused with tabloid (newspaper format). Many publications that are not tabloid journalism use the tabloid format (and many that are do not.)
2017 2019 2020 2021 2021 2021 was discussed in 2024. July 2024 closure was overturned at AN in August without a new close. 2022 2020 2022 2023 2024 2020 2021 2021 2021 2022 2023 2023 2023
