Crandi

Wikipedia Reliable Sources Perennial Sources Wikipedia

Leo Migdal
-
wikipedia reliable sources perennial sources wikipedia

This is 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... 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... 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. The perennial sources list[a] (abbreviated as RSP or shortcut form WP:RSP) is a community-maintained list on the English Wikipedia that classifies sources by degrees of reliability.[2][3] It was established in 2018.[4] The ratings, which...

Ratings on the list are not meant to function as "pre-approved sources that can always be used without regard for the ordinary rules of editing", nor is the list a "list of banned sources... The perennial sources list catalogs sources under four categories, "generally reliable", "marginally reliable", "generally unreliable", and "deprecated". Generally reliable sources must be "independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Marginally reliable sources are usable only in "certain circumstances".[2][5] Generally unreliable sources "should normally not be used" and "should never be used for information about a living person".[8] Deprecated sources are "generally prohibited".[2][5] Deprecated... Reliability discussions are held on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, a public forum. Editors discuss how well a source complies with Wikipedia's guideline on reliable sources.

Sometimes, debates are held within Wikipedia's Request for Comment process.[5] The debates are public and archived, allowing people to see how a reliability assessment was reached.[7] Which sources are considered reliable differ among language versions. For example, the Persian Wikipedia heavily relies on Iranian state media outlets.[11] In 2022, the East StratCom Task Force reported that pro-Russian disinformation websites were being cited on the Russian, Arabic, Spanish, Portuguese, and... This guide describes the structure of the perennial sources list, and explains how to maintain the list as new discussions appear on the reliable sources noticeboard. Any editor is welcome to update the list using this guide. The list is structured as a table with multiple templates, split into the following editable subpages (as the result of a 2024 discussion):

Most edits to the list require a basic understanding of how to build tables and transclude templates using wikitext. Since the perennial sources list uses table-connected wikitext extensively, it is currently impractical to change a source's status or add a new entry with the VisualEditor. If you normally use the VisualEditor, please switch to "Source editing" mode before editing the list. A project-level RfC is required for the following: 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... 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...

Qualifying participants are editors who make at least one comment on the source's reliability. On the page WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, a common classification is "No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply" (also sometimes called WP:MREL, "Option 2", or "yellow" sources). These sources are grouped together because they are not generally reliable or generally unreliable, and because an editor looking to use such a source should take the same general approach: considering it more carefully... However, within this category, there are still substantial differences that can impact source evaluation. This page provides a taxonomy of MREL sources along with explanations and further information. The content of this page is based on the summaries of each source at WP:RSP#Sources, where the full descriptions can be found.

In the event of a conflict between this page and the main RSP page, defer to RSP. A source may be classified as MREL for many reasons, but these reasons generally fall into one or more of the following groups. It is common for individual sources to qualify for multiple groups, e.g. a source that is unreliable on some topics but marginally reliable on others would fall in both Group 1 and Group 2. The reliability of these sources differs when citing different parts of the same source, or when the source is used to support different types of statements. While this occurs in all sources, this group focuses on cases that are specific to the source in question (e.g.

a newspaper that includes both news and opinion does not qualify on that basis, if there are no additional considerations for the specific source). The scale of the issue is also relevant: if a source's issues are confined to a narrow category (e.g. one contributor out of many is later found to have plagiarized their work), it is likely to be considered generally reliable, while if only a small subset of the content is reliable (e.g. Youtube videos posted by reliable sources are themselves reliable), it is likely to be considered generally unreliable. The source may be divided into multiple entries at RSP. These sources have been determined to be less than generally reliable but more than generally unreliable (sometimes summarized as "usable with caution").

There are substantial differences in reliability within this group; some of them are close to generally reliable, and others are close to generally unreliable. The evaluation of marginal reliability does not necessarily apply to all aspects of the source (if the source is also classified as Group 1). If the source is not classified as Group 1, other factors may still increase or decrease its reliability in the usual manner, given the specific context. Below are some sources whose reliability and use on Wikipedia is often talked about. This list combines past discussions elsewhere on Wikipedia It It is important to understand that context matters, and some sources may or may not be suitable for certain uses depending on the situation. For example, even bad sources like social media can be used as self-published sources for information about the subject themselves.

On the other hand, good sources may not be reliable for information outside their areas of expertise. Even very good sources can make errors. Be careful with sponsored content, because it is usually unreliable as a source. Note: This list is made using the English Wikipedia. Some sites are identified by credible sources (e.g. the EU's anti-disinformation East Stratcom Task Force) as publishers of fake news.

Many of these are sponsored by a government. These sites are considered unreliable and should be blacklisted when found. Templat:Subcat guideline Templat:Nutshell Templat:Guideline list Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (.mw-parser-output div.crossreference{padding-left:0}see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. This guideline discusses the reliability of various types of sources.

The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations. The verifiability policy is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, and sections of articles—without exception, and in particular to biographies of living persons, which states: Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. In the event of a contradiction between this guideline and our policies regarding sourcing and attribution, the policies take priority and editors should seek to resolve the discrepancy. Other policies relevant to sourcing are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. For questions about the reliability of particular sources, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.

For a list of sources that are talked about often, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. One of the problems that Wikipedia is most criticized for is that it is not always reliable. This is true, since anybody can change most articles and add anything they like. Sometimes bad changes stay in place for a long time. Wikipedia guidelines such as Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research and the additional restrictions for living people at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons have been made to help prevent this. These guidelines are there for two reasons:

However, many sources are not suitable for use in Wikipedia because they are not reliable. This is a guideline about the types of sources which are reliable. Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources. (An article is a page in the main namespace. Most other pages, such as Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, do not need sources.) These sources can be in any language, not just English or Simple English. These are all the reliable sources extracted from subpages 1 – 8.

(There might be a few stragglers missing, especially if they were the last row on a subpage.)

People Also Search

This Is A Non-exhaustive List Of Sources Whose Reliability And

This is 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 ...

When In Doubt, Defer To The Linked Discussions, Which Provide

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 tre...

Conversely, Some Otherwise High-quality Sources May Not Be Reliable For

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... Even considering content published by a single source, some may represent high-quality professional journalism, while other content may be merely opinion pieces...

Ratings On The List Are Not Meant To Function As

Ratings on the list are not meant to function as "pre-approved sources that can always be used without regard for the ordinary rules of editing", nor is the list a "list of banned sources... The perennial sources list catalogs sources under four categories, "generally reliable", "marginally reliable", "generally unreliable", and "deprecated". Generally reliable sources must be "independent, publis...

Sometimes, Debates Are Held Within Wikipedia's Request For Comment Process.[5]

Sometimes, debates are held within Wikipedia's Request for Comment process.[5] The debates are public and archived, allowing people to see how a reliability assessment was reached.[7] Which sources are considered reliable differ among language versions. For example, the Persian Wikipedia heavily relies on Iranian state media outlets.[11] In 2022, the East StratCom Task Force reported that pro-Russ...