Open main menu

Wikipedia:New page patrol source guide

  (Redirected from User:Rosguill/NPPRS)

The purpose of this page is to centralize information about reliable sources for use by new page patrollers when reviewing new articles. It is intended as a supplement to the reliable sources noticeboard and List of Perennial Sources, to help page patrollers unfamiliar with a given subject assess notability and neutrality of an article––entries should focus on whether a specific publication is sufficiently reliable for significant coverage in the publication to count toward notability for a subject. Disagreements with assessments here should be escalated to the reliable sources noticeboard, with a notice also placed on the talk page of this article to notify editors about the discussion.

All information in this page should be written to reflect existing consensus elsewhere on Wikipedia.

This page is organized into sections corresponding to specific topics and regions that share sources in common. Sources may be included in more than one section if they are relevant to more than one section.

Contents

How to use and improve this pageEdit

Claims about a source's reliability should be cited to either to the perennial sources list or to discussions that demonstrate a consensus that the claim is true. Note that this is a considerably weaker standard than the one employed at the perennial sources list. This is because the purpose of this list is to provide at-a-glance reliability judgments for editors working on unfamiliar subjects, not to be a final arbiter on matters of reliability. While the discussions cited in this page may be useful resources when arguing about a given source's reliability, a source's inclusion in any given category on this page should not be used as an argument in any protracted discussion over a source's reliability.

If you would like to expand this page with the contents of a WikiProject source guide, either format a link to the relevant guide as a citation, or include it using a {{main}} or {{see also}} template.

If you disagree with any assessment listed on this page, either provide citations justifying a change, or start a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard in order to establish a more holistic and up to date consensus. However, be mindful of the level of support for the claim that you intend to challenge: for instance, challenging sources listed at the perennial sources list is much less likely to result in a new consensus than challenging sources supported by a single discussion.

Contextual information about sources' affiliations, biases, and other information beyond a reliability judgment is intended to provide information to help contextualize sources, primarily to assess if an article is likely to be missing additional viewpoints.

Newspapers of record are generally considered to be reliable for purposes of notability and uncontroversial topics. However, more care may need to be taken when evaluating an article's neutrality.

By regionEdit

International reportingEdit

These sources have extensive coverage of many different countries and regions

ReliableEdit

UnreliableEdit

  • Centre for Research on Globalization, generally unreliable. The CRG is considered generally unreliable due to its propagation of conspiracy theories and lack of editorial oversight. It is a biased or opinionated source, and its content is likely to constitute undue weight. As it often covers fringe material, parity of sources should be considered. [1]
  • HispanTV, deprecated, Spanish language, republishes conspiracy theories and Iranian propaganda.[1]
  • Press TV, English and French, owned by the government of Iran. Usable as a primary source for opinions and official lines from the Iranian government.[1]
  • Sputnik, many languages, Sputnik is considered a Russian propaganda outlet that engages in bias and disinformation, some editors consider Sputnik to be a reliable source for official Russian government statements and positions.[1]
  • Telesur, deprecated. Useful only for statements of opinion from the government of Venezuela.[1]
  • WikiLeaks, a repository of primary source documents leaked by anonymous sources. Most editors believe that documents from WikiLeaks fail the verifiability policy, because WikiLeaks does not adequately authenticate them, and there are concerns regarding whether the documents are genuine or tampered. It may be appropriate to cite a document from WikiLeaks as a primary source, but only if it is discussed by a reliable source. However, linking to material that violates copyright is prohibited by the external links guideline.[1]
  • Wikinews, insufficient editorial oversight.[1]
No consensusEdit
  • International Business Times, many languages, quality is inconsistent, significant amounts of content are syndicated and not clearly marked.[1]
  • Mondoweiss, English, largely reports on issues related to Israel/Palestine. Opinionated source backed by an advocacy group, statements should be attributed.[1]
  • RIA Novosti, many languages, official news agency of the Russian government. It is generally considered a usable source for official government statements and positions. There is no consensus on whether it is reliable for other topics, though opinions generally lean towards unreliability.[1]
  • RT (Russia Today), no consensus, described as a mouthpiece for the Russian government that at times has promoted conspiracy theories. Not reliable for controversial or political topics, no consensus about broader reliability.[1]
  • TRT World, English, an RfC closed in June 2019 reached a consensus that it is not reliable for anything with which the Turkish government could be construed to have a conflict of interest, but that it is likely reliable for unrelated reporting and statements about the official positions of the Turkish government.[2] signed, Rosguill talk 04:09, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Vice Media (Garage, i-D, Motherboard, Vice, Vice News) There is no consensus on the reliability of Vice magazine or Vice Media websites, including Motherboard and Vice News. It is generally regarded as more reliable for arts and entertainment than for politics.[1]

AfricaEdit

GhanaEdit

No consensusEdit
  • Graphic Ghana, a 2019 discussion on reliability was closed as no consensus due to insufficient participation. Most participants seemed to think it was reliable for most news coverage, although some concerns remain due to its unclear relationship to the Ghanaian government.[3]

NigeriaEdit

Reliable sourcesEdit
This section is based on this discussion.[4]
Not reliableEdit
This section is based on this discussion.[4]
Reliability unclear, proceed with caution:Edit

SomaliaEdit

ReliableEdit
  • Horseed Media, probably reliable.[5]
No consensusEdit

UgandaEdit

ReliableEdit
  • New Vision, large national newspaper, cited frequently by scholarly sources. Unclear if it has a conflict of interest with the government of Uganda. [6]
No consensusEdit
  • PML Daily, raised for discussion in June 2019, no editors made any claims to its reliability or lack thereof.[6]

AsiaEdit

ChinaEdit

Papers of recordEdit
UnreliableEdit
No consensusEdit
  • Epoch Times, English, published in US, bias toward Falun Gong, may not give appropriate weight to controversial issues.[1]

IndiaEdit

Papers of recordEdit
No consensusEdit
  • Orissapost.com, ok for non-controversial news reporting [10]

IranEdit

UnreliableEdit
  • Press TV, owned by the government of Iran. Usable as a primary source for opinions and official lines from the Iranian government.[1]
  • HispanTV, deprecated, Spanish language, republishes conspiracy theories and Iranian propaganda.[1]

Israel/PalestineEdit

ReliableEdit
UnreliableEdit
No consensusEdit
  • Mondoweiss, English, largely reports on issues related to Israel/Palestine. Opinionated source backed by an advocacy group, statements should be attributed.[1]

NepalEdit

No consensusEdit

South KoreaEdit

ReliableEdit

TurkeyEdit

MixedEdit
  • TRT World, an RfC closed in June 2019 reached a consensus that it is not reliable for anything with which the Turkish government could be construed to have a conflict of interest, but that it is likely reliable for unrelated reporting and statements about the official positions of the Turkish government.[12] signed, Rosguill talk 04:04, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

EuropeEdit

Czech RepublicEdit

ReliableEdit
UnreliableEdit
  • Aeronet (aka AE News), described by an editor as "fake news" with respect to its coverage of Czech politics.[13]
  • Aha!, described as a tabloid, unfavorably compared to other Czech sources.[13]
  • Blesk, described as a tabloid, unfavorably compared to other Czech sources.[13]
  • Parlamentní listy, described by editors as "horseshit" and "fake news" with respect to its coverage of Czech politics.[13]
  • Super, described as a tabloid, unfavorably compared to other Czech sources.[13]
No consensusEdit

FranceEdit

ReliableEdit

GermanyEdit

ReliableEdit
  • Der Spiegel, generally reliable. Articles written by Claas Relotius are generally unreliable as this particular journalist has been found to fabricate articles.[1]
UnreliableEdit

RussiaEdit

No consensusEdit
  • RIA Novosti, official news agency of the Russian government. It is generally considered a usable source for official government statements and positions. There is no consensus on whether it is reliable for other topics, though opinions generally lean towards unreliability.[1]
  • TASS (ТАСС, ITAR-TASS, Telegraph Agency of the Soviet Union), reliability of TASS varies based on the subject matter. Editors consider TASS fairly reliable for statements of fact as stated by the Russian government, but also agree that there are deficiencies in the reliability of TASS's reporting on other issues.[1]

United KingdomEdit

ReliableEdit
UnreliableEdit
No consensusEdit
  • Daily Mirror, tabloid.[1]
  • Evening Standard, despite being a free newspaper, considered more reliable than British tabloids.[1]
  • Hope not Hate, advocacy group for anti-racism and anti-fascism, reliability must be assessed on a case by case basis.[1]
  • Morning Star, no consensus, communist political line.[1]
  • PinkNews, no consensus, LGBT-oriented editorial stance.[1]
  • Hansard, primary source of transcripts from Parliament, use with attribution.[1]

North AmericaEdit

CanadaEdit

UnreliableEdit

United StatesEdit

Reliable sourcesEdit
Unreliable sourcesEdit
No consensusEdit
  • Ballotpedia, election website with editorial team, but Wikipedia editors have expressed concern with their editorial process.[1]
  • BuzzFeed, not to be confused with BuzzFeed News[1]
  • Cosmopolitan, evaluate on a case by case basis.[1]
  • CounterPunch, biased/opinionated [1]
  • The Daily Beast, has editorial oversight but is "largely an opinion piece aggregator".[1]
  • Democracy Now!, partisan source, no consensus on reliability.[1]
  • Epoch Times, also contains lots of reporting on China, bias toward Falun Gong, may not give appropriate weight to controversial issues.[1]
  • Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, progressive bias, do not use to support controversial claims in BLPs[1]
  • HuffPost, no consensus with most editors preferring to use more established sources.[1]
  • Independent Journal Review, news reporting is largely syndicated from Reuters, "community member" posts are self-published.[1]
  • Media Matters for America, progressive media-watchdog.[1]
  • Media Research Center, conservative media-watchdog.[1]
  • National Review, no consensus, partisan source (American conservative).[1]
  • New York Daily News (Illustrated Daily News), no consensus, tabloid newspaper.[1]
  • New York Post (New York Evening Post, Page Six), no consensus, tabloid newspaper.[1]
  • Newsmax, no consensus, discussions on Wikipedia are dated.[1]
  • Salon, largely an opinion publication, no consensus on reliability.[1]
  • Snopes, generally reliable. Attribution may be necessary.[1]
  • ThinkProgress, Discussions of ThinkProgress are dated, with the most recent in 2013. Circumstances may have changed. Some consider ThinkProgress a form of WP:NEWSBLOG, and reliable for attributed statements of opinion. Others argue that ThinkProgress is generally reliable under WP:NEWSORG, albeit with due consideration for their political leanings.[1]
  • Townhall, as of 2010, a few editors commented that opinion pieces in Townhall are reliable as a source for the opinion of the author of the individual piece, although they may not be reliable for unattributed statements of fact.[1]
  • Washington Examiner, no consensus about general reliability. There is consensus that opinions in the Washington Examiner should not be used to substantiate exceptional claims regarding living persons.[1]
  • The Washington Times, marginally reliable, and should be avoided when more reliable sources are available. Its reporting is considered to be particularly biased for climate change and US race relations.[1]

OceaniaEdit

AustraliaEdit

UnreliableEdit
  • Quadrant Magazine, generally unreliable for factual reporting.[15] Note that it is a literary magazine, and thus may still be reliable for literary reviews.
No consensusEdit

South AmericaEdit

VenezuelaEdit

UnreliableEdit
  • Telesur, deprecated.[1]
  • Venezuelanalysis, not reliable. Though it can be useful for some news related to Venezuela, Venezuelanalysis states that "it is clearly pro-Bolivarian Revolution" and supports the Venezuelan government..[1]

By topicEdit

Generally speaking, significant independent coverage in any reliable news source contributes to the notability of any topic (however, they may be less than authoritative for supporting claims for specialized topics like science or religion).

In addition, here are some source breakdowns of sources that are specific to certain topics.

BiographyEdit

ReliableEdit

  • People, generally reliable for BLPs, do not use for particularly contentious claims.[1]

UnreliableEdit

No consensusEdit

  • Biography.com[1]
  • E!, generally usable for celebrity news but may not represent due weight.[1]
  • TMZ, no consensus about the reliability of TMZ. Although TMZ is cited by reliable sources, most editors consider TMZ a low-quality source and prefer more reliable sources when available. Because TMZ frequently publishes articles on rumors and speculation without named authors, it is recommended to properly attribute statements from TMZ. When TMZ is the only source for a piece of information, consider whether the information constitutes due or undue weight, especially when the subject is a living person.[1]
  • Us Weekly, no consensus. Consensus that it is less reliable than People.[1]
  • Who's Who (UK), editors are divided on whether sufficient editorial control exists, and whether it is an independent source. It is generally considered more reliable than Marquis Who's Who, which is published in the United States.[1]

Books, fashion, film, music, television, video games and other pop cultureEdit

ReliableEdit

  • The A.V. Club [1]
  • Boing Boing, however there is no consensus regarding their reliability for topics other than pop culture.[1]
  • The Daily Dot, reliable for content about internet culture.[1]
  • Deadline Hollywood reliable for entertainment-related articles.[1]
  • Entertainment Weekly, reliable for entertainment-related articles, no consensus for other topics.[1]
  • The Hollywood Reporter, reliable for entertainment-related articles.[1]
  • Idolator, reliable for music, evaluate for due weight on a case-by-case basis.[1]
  • The Mary Sue, reliable for reviews and opinion, not reliable for reblogged content.[1]
  • Rolling Stone, There is consensus that Rolling Stone is generally reliable. Rolling Stone's opinion pieces and reviews, as well as any contentious statements regarding living persons, should only be used with proper attribution. The publication's capsule reviews deserve less weight than their full-length reviews, as they are subject to a lower standard of fact-checking.[1]
  • Rotten Tomatoes, Rotten Tomatoes is considered generally reliable for its review aggregation and its news articles on film and TV. There is no consensus on whether its blog articles and critic opinion pages are generally reliable for facts. There is a consensus that user reviews on Rotten Tomatoes are generally unreliable, as they are self-published sources. Reviewers tracked by Rotten Tomatoes are not automatically reliable for their reviews, while there is no consensus on whether their "Top Critics" are generally reliable.[1]
  • TheWrap, as an industry trade publication, there is consensus that TheWrap is a good source for entertainment news and media analysis. There is no consensus regarding the reliability of TheWrap's articles on other topics.[1]
  • TV Guide, generally reliable, some consider it to be a primary source.[1]
  • Variety, generally reliable entertainment trade magazine.[1]
  • Vice Media (Garage, i-D, Motherboard, Vice, Vice News), while there is no consensus for general reliability, it is reliable for arts and entertainment.[1]
  • Vogue, generally reliable.[1]
  • CliffsNotes is a study guide. Editors consider CliffsNotes to be usable for superficial analyses of literature, and recommend supplementing CliffsNotes citations with additional sources. Reliable for notability.[1]
  • SparkNotes, same as CliffsNotes.[1]
  • Vanity Fair, [1]

UnreliableEdit

  • Amazon, content is provided by sellers.[1]
  • Discogs, user-generated content.[1]
  • Genius, song lyrics and annotations are user-generated. No consensus about articles with bylines published on the website.[1]
  • Goodreads, user-generated.[1]
  • IMDb, user-generated.[1]
  • Last.fm, user-generated, deprecated.[1]
  • Rate Your Music (RYM, Cinemos, Glitchwave, Sonemic), user-generated, deprecated.[1]
  • Tunefind, user-generated.[1]
  • TV Tropes, user-generated.[1]
  • WhoSampled, user-generated.[1]
  • Wikia (Fandom), open-wiki. Note that while Wikia should not be cited, when published under a compatible license it may be permissible to copy information from there.[1]

No consensusEdit

  • Know Your Meme, "submissions" are user-generated, no consensus for video series and "confirmed" entries.[1]
  • MetalSucks, MetalSucks is considered usable for its reviews and news articles. Avoid its overly satirical content and exercise caution when MetalSucks is the only source making a statement.[1]
  • TMZ, no consensus about the reliability of TMZ. Although TMZ is cited by reliable sources, most editors consider TMZ a low-quality source and prefer more reliable sources when available. Because TMZ frequently publishes articles on rumors and speculation without named authors, it is recommended to properly attribute statements from TMZ. When TMZ is the only source for a piece of information, consider whether the information constitutes due or undue weight, especially when the subject is a living person.[1]

Useful linksEdit

Business, companies and productsEdit

ReliableEdit

UnreliableEdit

No consensusEdit

  • Business Insider, in 2015 their site had a disclaimer saying information therein may not be correct.[1]
  • International Business Times, many languages, quality is inconsistent, significant amounts of content are syndicated and not clearly marked.[1]
  • Investopedia, no consensus, tertiary source.[1]
  • The Next Web, no consensus, 2014 and 2016 discussions considered it reliable, 2018 discussions leaned toward unreliable.[1]
  • TechCrunch, careful consideration should be given to whether a piece is written by staff or as a part of their blog, as well as whether the piece/writer may have a conflict of interest, and to what extent they rely on public relations material from their subject for their writing. TechCrunch may be useful for satisfying verifiability, but may be less useful for purpose of determining notability.[1]

GeographyEdit

Google Maps is useful for some purposes, but can also be considered original research. For China, OpenStreetMap is preferable.[1]

Medicine and healthEdit

ReliableEdit

No consensusEdit

  • Quackwatch, no consensus, self-published site run by an expert in the field.[1]

ReligionEdit

UnreliableEdit

No consensusEdit

  • Deseret News, while reliable for local news, it is owned by the LDS church, with no consensus on its reliability on matters related to the church.[1]

Science and technologyEdit

ReliableEdit

UnreliableEdit

  • CoinDesk while there is a lack of consensus as to whether or not CoinDesk is reliable for factual reporting, there is a consensus that it is not reliable for evaluating notability on the basis of its coverage.[1]
  • Crunchbase, user generated content.[1]
  • Stack Exchange (Stack Overflow, MathOverflow, Ask Ubuntu), user generated.[1]
  • arXiv, self-published source. Papers hosted here may or may not have also been published in a peer-reviewed journal–if so, cite that journal but provide a link to arXiv.[1]

No consensusEdit

  • The Next Web, no consensus, 2014 and 2016 discussions considered it reliable, 2018 discussions leaned toward unreliable.[1]
  • ScienceBlogs, no consensus, network of invite-only blogs run by experts. However, some blogs may write about subjects outside of their author's expertise.[1]
  • Softpedia, reliable for reviews, no consensus for news articles.[1]
  • TechCrunch, careful consideration should be given to whether a piece is written by staff or as a part of their blog, as well as whether the piece/writer may have a conflict of interest, and to what extent they rely on public relations material from their subject for their writing. TechCrunch may be useful for satisfying verifiability, but may be less useful for purpose of determining notability.[1]

SportsEdit

ReliableEdit

UnclassifiableEdit

UnreliableEdit

  • Cracked (magazine), humor publication.[1]
  • LiveJournal, self-published.[1]
  • The Onion, satire.[1]
  • Quora, crowd-sourced.[1]
  • Wikidata, user-generated. However, uniquely among WMF sites, Wikidata's statements can be directly transcluded into articles; this is usually done to provide external links or infobox data. [1]
  • Wikipedia, user-generated.[1]
  • WordPress.com, self-published blogs.[1]
  • YouTube, self-published. Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability. However, many YouTube videos from unofficial accounts are copyright violations and should not be linked from Wikipedia, according to the external links guideline.[1]
  • Examiner.com, spam blacklist.[1]

ReferencesEdit

  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah ai aj ak al am an ao ap aq ar as at au av aw ax ay az ba bb bc bd be bf bg bh bi bj bk bl bm bn bo bp bq br bs bt bu bv bw bx by bz ca cb cc cd ce cf cg ch ci cj ck cl cm cn co cp cq cr cs ct cu cv cw cx cy cz da db dc dd de df dg dh di dj dk dl dm dn do dp dq dr ds dt du dv dw dx dy dz ea eb ec ed ee ef eg eh ei ej ek el em en eo ep eq er es et eu ev ew ex ey ez fa fb fc fd fe ff fg fh fi fj fk fl fm fn fo fp fq fr fs ft fu fv fw fx fy fz ga gb gc gd ge gf gg gh gi gj gk gl gm gn go gp gq gr gs gt gu gv gw gx gy gz ha hb hc hd he hf hg hh hi hj hk Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources
  2. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_267#RfC:_TRT_World
  3. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 269#RfC: Daily Graphic and graphic.com.gh
  4. ^ a b c Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Archive 26#Expertise in Nigerian sources?
  5. ^ a b c Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 263#Somalia news sources
  6. ^ a b Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_267#PML_Daily_article_about_political_bloggers
  7. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 67#The Hindu
  8. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 158#Times of India
  9. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 145#News rack: Is it a reliable source
  10. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_268#Orissapost.com
  11. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_266#Is_Kathmandu_Tribune_a_Reliable_Source
  12. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_267#RfC:_TRT_World
  13. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_268#Post-Velvet_Revolution_Mladá_fronta_DNES
  14. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_250#Le_Monde_Diplomatique
  15. ^ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 269#RfC: Quadrant Magazine