Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Reliable sources

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GreenMeansGo (talk | contribs) at 12:41, 31 July 2018 (+1 image). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The reliability of a source will greatly affect what information it can be used to support, or whether it should be used at all

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

How to use this list

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 information about the subject themselves. Conversely, high quality sources may not be reliable for highly technical subjects that fall well outside their normal circle of competence, and even very high quality sources may occasionally make errors, or retract pieces they have published in their entirety. Even considering content published by a single source, some may represent high quality professional journalism, while others may be merely opinion pieces, that represent mainly the personal views of the author, and depend on their personal reliability as a source.

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

When in doubt, defer to the discussions linked to here, rather than to this list itself as a guide, as they will offer the greatest context about context, how or why a source should be used, and what may or may not be problematic. If you find that the content in this list inadequately summarizes the consensus reached in relevant discussions, help to improve it or start a discussion on the the talk page.

List

Source Status Discussions Date of Last Discussion Notes Current usage on Wikipedia
Amazon.com
Generally unreliable 		[1][2] [3] [4] [5] October 4, 2017 User reviews on Amazon.com are anonymous, self-published, and unverifiable, and should not be used at all. Basic information about a work (such as release date, ISBN, etc) may usually be taken from Amazon.com, although Amazon.com does not need to be cited for basic information for which the work itself may serve as a source. Future release dates may be unreliable. If possible, information on Amazon.com should be primarily used as a means of finding other, more reliable sources with the same in formation. uses
Ancestry.com
Generally unreliable 		[6] [7] [8] [9] May 7, 2015 Ancestry.com hosts a huge database of primary source documents including marriage records, census records, and marriage records. Some of these sources may be usable in certain circumstances, but secondary sources, where available, are usually preferred. Ancestry.com also hosts a huge amount of user submitted content, none of which is reliable. uses
Breitbart
Generally unreliable 		[10] [11] [12] August 3, 2016 Breitbart is not a reliable source in most cases. The site has published a number of falsehoods, conspiracy theories,[6] and intentionally misleading stories.[9] uses
The Blaze
Generally unreliable 		[13] [14] [15] March 7, 2018 The Blaze is generally considered unreliable for facts. In some cases, it may be usable for attributed opinions. uses
BuzzFeed
No consensus 		[16] [17][18] July 26, 2018 Distinctions between BuzzFeed and its now separate site, BuzzFeed News, may need to be examined in discussion.
CounterPunch
No consensus 		[19] [20] [21] [22] November 11, 2016 uses
Daily Beast
No consensus 		[23] [24] May 30, 2018 uses
The Daily Caller
No consensus 		[25] [26] March 26, 2013 uses
Daily Kos
No consensus 		[27] [28] October 14, 2017 There is no consensus that the Daily Kos is a reliable source. Some content published on its website is user submitted. uses
The Daily Wire
No consensus 		[29] May 16, 2018 The Daily Wire is a website founded by former Breitbart editor Ben Shapiro. There is no consensus that the Daily Wire is a reliable source. Many editors believe that the Daily Wire is not a reliable source, while others believe it can be used with caution. The Daily Wire has published false stories.[10][11] uses
Daily Mail
Generally unreliable 		RfC February 8, 2017 The Daily Mail (including its online version, dailymail.co.uk) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles. uses
Find a Grave
Generally unreliable 		[30] [31] [32] [33] October 18, 2016 The content on Find a Grave is user submitted, and is therefore not considered a reliable source.[12] Links to Find a Grave may sometimes be included in the external links section of articles, when the site offers valuable additional content, such as images not permitted for use on Wikipedia. Use care that the Find a Grave page does not itself contain prohibited content, such as copyright violations.
Forbes.com (contributors)
Generally unreliable 		[34] [35] [36] [37] June 4, 2018 Forbes includes "contributor" articles, which constitute most content on Forbes, and are written without much editorial oversight. This generally means articles by contributors can be considered opinion pieces, although content written by Forbes staff can be considered reliable. The last link (archive 242) mentions that Forbes is starting to do some quality control, but in general the consensus seems to be that Forbes "sites" shouldn't be used as sources unless the author is an expert in their field and writing within that field, and that they should be avoided in establishing notability. uses
Forbes.com (staff) Template:Good source [38] [39] [40] [41] June 4, 2018 Forbes includes articles written by their staff, which are written with editorial oversight and are generally reliable. They also publish various "top" lists which can be referenced in articles as appropriate uses
Huffington Post Template:Good source [42] [43] [44] [45] February 16, 2017 Huffington Post is a Pulitzer Prize winning news website.[13] It is generally considered a reliable source, however it also publishes syndicated content and guest blog material, which should be scrutinized accordingly.
Independent Journal Review
No consensus 		[46] [47] June 9, 2018 There is no consensus that Independent Journal Review is a reliable source.
Infowars
Generally unreliable 		[48] October 2, 2011 Infowars is a conspiracy theorist and fake news website[26] It is an unreliable source. uses
Media Matters
No consensus 		[49] [50] [51] [52] January 11, 2018 There is no consensus that Media Matters for America is a reliable source.
Mediaite
No consensus 		[53] May 12, 2017 There is no consensus that Mediaite is a reliable source.
Newsmax
No consensus 		[54] [55] November 11, 2013 There is no consensus that Newsmax is a reliable source.
Politifact Template:Good source RfC November 17, 2016 PolitiFact is a reliable source for reporting the veracity of statements made by political candidates. PolitiFact 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.
Media Research Center

(Newsbusters)

No consensus 		[56] March 13, 2010 There is no consensus that Newsbusters is a reliable source.
Salon
No consensus 		[57] [58] [59] February 20, 2018 There is no consensus that Salon is a reliable source. It is generally regarded as an opinion source.
The Skeptic's Dictionary Template:Good source [60] [61] [62] May 30, 2008 The Skeptik's dictionary is generally considered a reliable source. Attribution may be necessary. In some cases, it's preferable to cite the sources cited by the Skeptik's Dictionary.
SPLC Template:Good source [63] [64] [65] July 21, 2018 The Southern Poverty Law Center is generally considered a reliable source, but their views, especially when labeling hate groups, should be properly attributed.
ThinkProgress
No consensus 		[66] RfC August 14, 2013 There is no consensus that ThinkProgress is a reliable source.
TMZ
No consensus 		[67] [68] [69] [70] December 5, 2015 There is no consensus that TMZ is a reliable source.
Townhall
No consensus 		[71] [72] July 12, 2010 There is no consensus that Townhall is a reliable source.
The Washington Examiner
No consensus 		[73] [74] [75] July 28, 2017 There is no consensus that The Washington Examiner is a reliable source.
The Washington Times
No consensus 		[76] [77] [78] October 13, 2017 There is no consensus that the Washington Times is a reliable source.
The Weekly Standard Template:Good source [79] [80] October 5, 2014 The Weekly Standard is generally considered a reliable source, but much of their published content is opinion and should be attributed as such.
WorldNetDaily
Generally unreliable 		[81] [82] November 1, 2010 WorldNetDaily is not considered a reliable source for most purposes. The website is known for promoting falsehoods and conspiracy theories.[36] uses

What if I disagree?

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

However, before doing so please thoroughly familiarize yourself with previous discussions, and the reasons why a particular consensus was reached, and not simply the outcome itself. Also consider when consensus was reached, and that the outcomes of very recent discussions are unlikely to be overturned. Repeatedly restarting discussions where a strong and recent consensus already exists, may be considered disruptive and a form of forum shopping.

See also

Notes

  1. ^ *Jessica Roy (November 14, 2016). "What is the alt-right? A refresher course on Steve Bannon's fringe brand of conservatism". Los Angeles Times. ISSN 0458-3035. Under Bannon's leadership, Breitbart published ... articles regurgitating conspiracy theories about Hillary Clinton and her staff.
  2. ^ Lori Robertson (June 16, 2016). "Trump's ISIS Conspiracy Theory". FactCheck.org. Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. Donald Trump said a report on a conservative news site proved he was 'right' in suggesting President Obama supported terrorists. It doesn't. ... It's the kind of claim that we'd debunk in an article on viral conspiracy theories.
  3. ^ Louis Jacobson (June 15, 2016). "Donald Trump suggests Barack Obama supported ISIS, but that's a conspiracy theory". PolitiFact.
  4. ^ "Did 58 Scientific Papers Published in 2017 Say Global Warming is a Myth?". Snopes.com. Retrieved July 14, 2017.
  5. ^ Bhat, Prashanth (January 19, 2018). "Advertisements in the Age of Hyper-Partisan Media". The Trump Presidency, Journalism, and Democracy. Routledge. ISBN 9781351392013 – via Google Books.
  6. ^ [1][2][3][4][5]
  7. ^ Viveca Novak (July 21, 2010). "Shirley Sherrod's Contextual Nightmare". FactCheck.org. Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. We've posted no shortage of pieces on political attacks that leave context on the cutting room floor to give the public a misleading impression. ... The latest victim of the missing context trick is U.S. Department of Agriculture employee Shirley Sherrod. ... a clip of several minutes of her roughly 45-minute speech surfaced on conservative Andrew Breitbart's website, where he labeled her remarks 'racist' and proof of "bigotry" on the part of the NAACP. ... It quickly became clear that the climax, not to mention the moral, of Sherrod's tale had been edited out of the version Breitbart posted.
  8. ^ II, Scott A. Eldridge (September 26, 2017). Online Journalism from the Periphery: Interloper Media and the Journalistic Field. Routledge. ISBN 9781317370055 – via Google Books.
  9. ^ [7][8]
  10. ^ "FACT CHECK: Is Mohammed the Most Popular Name for Newborn Boys in the Netherlands?". Snopes.com. Retrieved April 29, 2018.
  11. ^ "Carson Didn't Find HUD Errors - FactCheck.org". FactCheck.org. April 19, 2017. Retrieved April 29, 2018.
  12. ^ https://www.findagrave.com/contribute
  13. ^ Flamm, Matthew (April 16, 2012). "Digital media takes home a Pulitzer". Crain's New York Business. Retrieved April 17, 2012.
  14. ^ Oppenheim, Maya (March 4, 2018). "Dozens of leading brands pull ads from far right conspiracy site InfoWars' YouTube channel". Independent.
  15. ^ Hafner, Josh (May 24, 2018). "Sandy Hook families suing Alex Jones aren't the only ones to threaten conspiracy theorist". USA Today.
  16. ^ Murphy, Paul P. (March 3, 2018). "Advertisers flee InfoWars founder Alex Jones' YouTube channel". CNN tech.
  17. ^ Lima, Cristiano (March 13, 2018). "InfoWars, Alex Jones sued for defamation over Charlottesville claims". Politico.
  18. ^ "Families of Sandy Hook victims could force Alex Jones to admit his outrageous lie". Boston Globe.
  19. ^ "Why Tommy Robinson Was Jailed, and Why U.S. Rightwingers Care". TIME.
  20. ^ "Republicans press social media giants on anti-conservative 'bias' that Dems call 'nonsense'". CBS19.
  21. ^ Shantz, Jeff (2016). Manufacturing Phobias: The Political Production of Fear in Theory and Practice. p. 231. ISBN 978-1-4426-2884-7.
  22. ^ Sandlin, Jennifer (2017). Paranoid Pedagogies: Education, Culture, and Paranoia. p. 170. ISBN 978-3-319-64764-7.
  23. ^ "Free Speech Systems LLC". Bloomberg L.P.
  24. ^ "Roger Stone, former Donald Trump adviser, lands InfoWars gig with Alex Jones". The Washington Times. December 31, 2017.
  25. ^ "The Lost Art of Privacy". National Review. December 15, 2017.
  26. ^ [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25]
  27. ^ Bruno, Debra; Bruno, Debra (February 21, 2016). "There's the major media. And then there's the 'other' White House press corps" – via washingtonpost.com. Les Kinsolving, a reporter for the far-right World Net Daily, was a familiar White House gadfly from the days of the Nixon administration on. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  28. ^ Massing, Michael. "Un-American". Columbia Journalism Review. Far-right Web sites like World Net Daily and Newsmax.com floated all kinds of specious stories about Obama that quickly careened around the blogosphere and onto talk radio. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  29. ^ Burns, John F. (May 5, 2009). "Britain Identifies 16 Barred From Entering U.K." The New York Times. New York City, NY: Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr. Retrieved March 26, 2010. according to WorldNetDaily.com, a conservative Web site.
  30. ^ "Fact-checking President-elect Trump's news conference". Washington Post. Retrieved May 26, 2017. He frequently claimed that Obama had spent $2 million to cover this up — a number he plucked out of World Net Daily, which promotes conservative-leaning conspiracy theories. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  31. ^ "The highly reliable, definitely-not-crazy places where Donald Trump gets his news". Washington Post. Retrieved May 26, 2017. WND is a leader in preserving murder cover-up theories, publishing 'exclusive reports' linking the Clintons to a plot to kill their longtime friend. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  32. ^ CNN, Gregory Krieg. "Trump's supporters and their bloody words of war". CNN. Retrieved May 26, 2017. Writing in the right-wing site WorldNetDaily, Pat Buchanan... {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  33. ^ "Our Politics Enables Donald Trump to Lie and Get Away With It". April 15, 2016. This isolates conservative news seekers to Fox News, conservative talk radio, Breitbart.com, or even websites further out on the fringe such as World Net Daily. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  34. ^ Michael Brendan, Dougherty. "Conservative Radio Host Says Andrew Breitbart Might Have Been Assassinated". Business Insider. Retrieved February 17, 2017. The report comes from WorldNetDaily, a right-wing website that periodically promotes conspiracy theories about Obama's birth certificate. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  35. ^ Selk, Avi. "In rumors around a DNC staffer's death, a whiff of a Clinton-era conspiracy theory". Washington Post. Retrieved May 17, 2017. One of Starr's investigators had been "threatened to short-circuit the probe," Joseph Farah wrote in 2003 on his website, WorldNetDaily.com, which would become an incubator for birther conspiracy theories in the Obama era. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  36. ^ [27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources&oldid=852797972"