User:A Quest For Knowledge/Reliable sources noticeboard FAQ

These are some Frequently Asked Questions on Wikipedia's Reliable sources noticeboard.

Is Ancestry.com a reliable source?

Overall, no. Most of Ancestry.com is user generated content with no editorial oversight. These are not considered reliable sources. Ancestry.com does carry proprietary content from a reputable source, the Dictionary of American Family Names by Oxford University Press. These can probably be considered reliable. There are some articles which are written by the Ancestry Magazine staff writers, such as Irish Immigrants to New York which might be reliable - this issue hasn't really been discussed in much depth at RSN. For past discussions, see Question about Ancestry.com (Archive 61) and Ancestry.com (Archive 58).

Is IMDb a reliable source?

This question comes up all the time. Much of IMDb is user-generated content which is usually not considered reliable. However, IMDb might be considered reliable for writing credits when supplied by the Writers Guild of America ("WGA") and the MPAA ratings when supplied by the Motion Picture Association of America. There was an attempt to codify this at Wikipedia:Citing IMDb, but it failed to gain consensus. If an editor is planning to nominate an article for featured article status, it may be rejected if it cites IMDb. However, IMDb is perfectly acceptable as an external link. For past discussions, see:

• IMDB lacking corroboration (Archive 68))
• IMDB as a source; List of documentary films (Archive 58)
• TV.com and IMDB (Archive 50)
• IMDB? (Archive 47)
• IMDB, again (Archive 40)
• IMDb for BLP info? (Archive 28)
• Is IMDb an unreliable source? (Archive 24)
• IMDB.com for plot synopsis (Archive 23)
• IMDb (Archive 22)
• Are IMDB and personal websites reliable sources (Archive 20)
• Is IMDb a reliable source? (Archive 17).

Also, see:

• IMDB as a source (Archive 25) from the talk page of the Identifying reliable sources guideline.