A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | CH | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9
 | This is an information page. It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines; rather, its purpose is to explain certain aspects of Wikipedia:Reliable sources guideline. It may reflect differing levels of consensus and vetting. |
 | This page in a nutshell: This is a list of repeatedly discussed sources, collected and summarized for convenience. Consensus can change, and context matters tremendously when determining how to use this list. Only sources that have been repeatedly raised for discussion are listed here, it is not a general or comprehensive list of all generally reliable or unreliable sources in the world, it is a summarization of discussions about the listed sources. |
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.
How to use this list
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.
What if my source is not here?
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, or it could mean the source is so obviously poor it never merited discussion. It could mean that the source covers a niche topic, 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."
How to improve this list
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.
Inclusion criteria
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.
Instructions
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.
Legend
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.
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 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.- 📌 Shortcut: Abbreviated wikilink to the list entry for the source.
Sources
| Source | Status (legend) |
Discussions | Uses | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| List | Last | Summary | |||
| 112 Ukraine | 
|
 2019  2020 2020
|
2020 | 112 Ukraine was deprecated following a 2019 RfC, which showed overwhelming consensus for the deprecation of a slew sources associated with Russian disinformation in Ukraine. It was pointed out later in a 2020 RfC that 112 Ukraine had not been explicitly discussed in that first discussion prior to its blacklisting request. Further discussion established a rough consensus that the source is generally unreliable, but did not form a consensus for deprecation or blacklisting. The prior blacklisting was reversed as out of process. 112 Ukraine closed in 2021. | 1   2
|
| ABC News | 
|
1 2 | 2021 | There is consensus that ABC News, the news division of the American Broadcasting Company, is generally reliable. It is not to be confused with other publications of the same name. | 1 2
|
| Academia.edu | 
|
1 2 3 | 2021 | Sources from Academia.edu may or may not be reliable. Academia.edu allows anyone to upload articles, so it doesn't confer any reliability, but the articles have often been published elsewhere first in which case the reliability of an article depends on whether the original source is reliable. When possible, use the original source in preference to Academia.edu. | 1
|
| Ad Fontes Media |
|
1 2 3 4 5 | 2021 | There is consensus that Ad Fontes Media and their Media Bias Chart should not be used in article space in reference to sources' political leaning or reliability. Editors consider it a self-published source and have questioned its methodology. | 1
|
| Advameg (City-Data) |
|
2019 2019 2019
|
2019 | Advameg operates content farms, including City-Data, that use scraped or improperly licensed content. These sites frequently republish content from Gale's encyclopedias; many editors can obtain access to Gale through The Wikipedia Library free of charge. Advameg's sites are on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. WP:COPYLINK prohibits linking to copyright violations. | 1 2 +43
|
| The Age |
|
2021
|
2021 | The Age is a newspaper based in Melbourne, Australia. There is consensus that it is generally reliable. | 1
|
| Agence France-Presse (AFP) |
|
1 2 | 2020 | Agence France-Presse is a news agency. There is consensus that Agence France-Presse is generally reliable. Syndicated reports from Agence France-Presse that are published in other sources are also considered generally reliable. | 1
|
| Al Jazeera (Al Jazeera English, Aljazeera.com) |
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 | 2024 | Al Jazeera is a Qatari state-owned news organization considered generally reliable. Editors perceive Al Jazeera English (and Aljazeera.com) to be more reliable than Al Jazeera's Arabic-language news reporting. Some editors say that Al Jazeera, particularly its Arabic-language media, is a partisan source with respect to the Arab–Israeli conflict. Al Jazeera's news blogs should be handled with the corresponding policy. | 1 2
|
| Al Mayadeen |
|
2023
|
2023 | Al Mayadeen is a Lebanese pan-Arabist news channel. It was deprecated in a 2023 RFC. Some editors believe it publishes lies or misrepresents sources, some describe it as propaganda. | 1
|
| Alexa Internet |
|
2022
|
2022 | Alexa Internet was a web traffic analysis company owned by Amazon and discontinued as of May 2022. There is no consensus on the reliability of Alexa Internet's website rankings. According to Alexa Internet, rankings of low-traffic websites are less reliable than rankings of high-traffic websites, and rankings of 100,000 and above are unreliable. A March 2022 RfC found no consensus on whether citations of Alexa Internet should be removed now that the service is defunct. Due to their instability, Alexa rankings should be excluded from infoboxes. | 1
|
| AllSides |
|
2022
|
2022 | In a 2022 RfC, editors found no consensus on the reliability of AllSides as a whole. A significant minority of users noted that AllSides has been referenced in reliable sources as an accurate source for media bias ratings, while another significant minority argued that its methodology, which is partly based on the opinions of users, makes it unsuitable for Wikipedia. There is general consensus that reliability varies among the website's articles and should be determined on a case-by-case basis; while the high-confidence ratings are generally reliable as they are reviewed carefully by experts, others depend on blind user surveys that some editors consider opinionated and less reliable. | 1
|
| AlterNet |
|
1 2 3 4 5 | 2019 | There is consensus that AlterNet is generally unreliable. Editors consider AlterNet a partisan source, and its statements should be attributed. AlterNet's syndicated content should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher, and the citation should preferably point to the original publisher. | 1
|
| Amazon |
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | 2021 | User reviews on Amazon are anonymous, self-published, and unverifiable, and should not be used at all.
Amazon is a reliable source for basic information about a work (such as release date, ISBN, etc.), although it is unnecessary to cite Amazon when the work itself may serve as a source for that information (e.g., authors' names and ISBNs). Future release dates may be unreliable. |
|
| The American Conservative (TAC) |
|
2019 2020 2021
|
2021 | The American Conservative is published by the American Ideas Institute, an advocacy organisation. It is a self-identified opinionated source whose factual accuracy was questioned and many editors say that The American Conservative should not be used as a source for facts. There is consensus that opinions sourced to it must always be accompanied with in-text attribution. | 1
|
| Amnesty International (Amnesty, AI) |
|
2022
|
2022 | Amnesty International is a human rights advocacy organisation. There is consensus that Amnesty International is generally reliable for facts. Editors may on occasion wish to use wording more neutral than that used by Amnesty and in controversial cases editors may wish to consider attribution for opinion. | 1
|
| Anadolu Agency (general topics) (AA) |
|
2019
|
 2019 |
The 2019 RfC established no consensus on the reliability of Anadolu Agency. Well-established news outlets are normally considered reliable for statements of fact. However, Anadolu Agency is frequently described as a mouthpiece of the Turkish government that engages in propaganda, owing to its state-run status. See also: Anadolu Agency (controversial topics, international politics). | 1 2
|
| Anadolu Agency (controversial topics, international politics) (AA) |
|
2019
|
2019 | In the 2019 RfC, editors generally agreed that Anadolu Agency is generally unreliable for topics that are controversial or related to international politics. See also: Anadolu Agency (general topics). | 1 2
|
| Ancestry.com |
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 | 2021 | Ancestry.com is a genealogy site that hosts a database of primary source documents including marriage and census records. Some of these sources may be usable under WP:PRIMARY, but secondary sources, where available, are usually preferred; further, see WP:BLPPRIMARY. Ancestry.com also hosts user-generated content, which is unreliable. | 1
|
| ANNA News (Abkhazian Network News Agency, Analytical Network News Agency) |
|
2022
|
2022 | ANNA News was deprecated in the 2022 RfC. It is a pro-Kremlin news agency that has been described as propaganda and has published fabricated information. | 1
|
| Answers.com (WikiAnswers) |
|
1 2 3 4 | 2010 | Answers.com (previously known as WikiAnswers) is a Q&A site that incorporates user-generated content. In the past, Answers.com republished excerpts and summaries of tertiary sources, including D&B Hoovers, Gale, and HighBeam Research. Citations of republished content on Answers.com should point to the original source, with a note that the source was accessed "via Answers.com". Answers.com also previously served as a Wikipedia mirror; using republished Wikipedia content is considered circular sourcing. | 1
|
| Anti-Defamation League (ADL) |
|
2020
|
2021 | There is consensus that ADL is a generally reliable source, including for topics related to hate groups and extremism in the U.S. There is no consensus that ADL must be attributed in all cases, but there is consensus that the labelling of organisations and individuals by the ADL (particularly as antisemitic) should be attributed. Some editors consider the ADL's opinion pieces not reliable, and that they should only be used with attribution. Some editors consider the ADL a biased source for Israel/Palestine related topics that should be used with caution, if at all. | 1
|
| Antiwar.com |
|
1 2 3 4 | 2011 | There is consensus that Antiwar.com is generally unreliable. Editors consider Antiwar.com to be biased or opinionated. | 1 2
|
| Aon |
|
2022
|
2022 | In a 2022 RfC, there was consensus that Aon is generally reliable for weather-related articles. Editors pointed out that Aon often provides data not found in other sources, and care should be taken when using the source as it may be providing a different estimate than other sources, e.g. total economic damages, rather than property damage. | 1
|
| Apple Daily |
|
2020
|
2021 | A 2020 RfC found that Apple Daily was often but not always reliable, and that it may be appropriate to use it in articles about Hong Kong, but subject to editorial judgment, particularly if the topic is controversial and/or Apple Daily is the only source for a contested claim. There was concern that historically, it was not necessarily as reliable as it was in 2020. Apple Daily shut down in June 2021; website content is no longer accessible unless archived. Editors with access to Dow Jones Factiva can access articles published by them in print between 2012 January 1 and 2018 March 15; simplified Chinese has source code APPLDS and traditional is APPLOT. | 1
|
| Arab News |
|
2020
|
2020 | There is consensus that Arab News is a usable source for topics unrelated to the Saudi Arabian government. As Arab News is closely associated with the Saudi Arabian government and is published in a country with low press freedom, editors consider Arab News biased and non-independent for Saudi Arabian politics, and recommend attribution for its coverage in this area. Some editors consider Arab News unreliable for matters related to the Saudi Arabian government. | 1
|
| Army Recognition |
|
1 2 | 2021 | The website reproducing press release material without any original reportage. In at least one example it has copied content without attribution from other sources. Editors allege that Army Recognition operates on a pay-for-coverage basis, providing "online marketing and advertising solutions" for the defense industry. This model may raise questions about the impartiality and independence of its content. | 1
|
| Ars Technica |
|
1 2 3 | 2022 | Ars Technica is considered generally reliable for science- and technology-related articles. | 1 2
|
| arXiv WP:ARXIV 📌
|
|
1 2 3 4 | 2015 | arXiv is a preprint (and sometimes postprint) repository containing papers that have undergone moderation, but not necessarily peer review. There is consensus that arXiv is a self-published source, and is generally unreliable with the exception of papers authored by established subject-matter experts. Verify whether a paper on arXiv is also 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 arXiv). | 1
|
| Asian News International (ANI) |
|
2021
|
2021 | Asian News International is an Indian news agency. For general reporting, Asian News International is considered to be between marginally reliable and generally unreliable, with consensus that it is biased and that it should be attributed in-text for contentious claims. For its coverage related to Indian domestic politics, foreign politics, and other topics in which the Government of India may have an established stake, there is consensus that Asian News International is questionable and generally unreliable due to its reported dissemination of pro-government propaganda. | 1
|
| AskMen |
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 | 2020 | There is no consensus on the reliability of AskMen. See also: IGN. | 1
|
| Association of Religion Data Archives (ARDA, Pew–Templeton Global Religious Futures) |
|
2018 | 2022 | No consensus on reliability; rough consensus to use the sources with in-text attribution and to prefer the use of stronger sources. | 1 1 1 1 1
|
| Associated Press (AP) |
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 | 2018 |
The Associated Press is a news agency. There is consensus that the Associated Press is generally reliable. Syndicated reports from the Associated Press that are published in other sources are also considered generally reliable. | 1 2
|
| The Atlantic (The Atlantic Monthly) |
|
1 2 3 4 | 2022 | The Atlantic is considered generally reliable. Editors should beware that The Atlantic does not always clearly delineate between reporting and opinion content; opinion pieces, including all articles in the "Ideas" column (theatlantic.com/ideas/), are governed by WP:RSOPINION. | 1
|
| Atlas Obscura "places" articles |
|
1 2 3 4 | 2023 | Atlas Obscura's "places" articles are user-generated and user-editable with minimal oversight, and the site's terms of use includes disclaimers about user submissions. Many of the "places" articles cite Wikipedia as a source of their information or otherwise lack clear or reliable sourcing. These articles should generally not be referenced on Wikipedia. | 1
|
| Atlas Obscura "articles" articles |
|
1 2 3 4 | 2023 | Atlas Obscura's "articles" articles are professionally authored with editor oversight, and generally reliable. However, other areas of the site operate as a commercial travel service vendor, and the site hosts user-generated content in its "places" articles (see WP:AOPLACES) | 1
|
| The Australian |
|
1 2 | 2020 | The Australian is considered generally reliable. Some editors consider The Australian to be a partisan source. Opinion pieces are covered by WP:RSOPINION and WP:NEWSBLOG. Several editors expressed concern regarding their coverage of climate change related topics. | 1
|
| Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) |
|
2021
|
2021 | There is consensus that use of Australian Strategic Policy Institute should be evaluated for due weight and accompanied with in text attribution when used. Editors consider the Australian Strategic Policy Institute to be a biased or opinionated source that is reliable in the topic area of Australian defence and strategic issues but recommend care as it is a think tank associated with the defence industry in Australia and the Australian Government. | 1
|
| The A.V. Club |
|
1 2 3 4 | 2024 | The A.V. Club is considered generally reliable for film, music and TV reviews. There is consensus that AI-generated articles are generally unreliable; The A.V. Club's parent company, G/O Media, began releasing such pieces in July 2023, usually under the byline "The A.V. Club Bot". | 1
|
| AVN (Adult Video News, AVN Magazine) |
|
2021
|
2021 | AVN is considered generally reliable for the adult industry. Editors should take care to ensure the content is not a republished press release (which is marked as such in search). | 1
|
| Axios |
|
1 2 | 2020 | There is consensus that Axios is generally reliable. Some editors consider Axios to be a biased or opinionated source. Statements of opinion should be attributed and evaluated for due weight. | 1
|
| Baidu Baike |
|
2020
|
Zdroj:https://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Wikipedia:RSPS|||