Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources

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.

Legend

•    Generally reliable in its areas of expertise: Editors agree that the source is reliable in most cases on information in its areas of expertise. This means the source has a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and usually has a good editorial team.
•    No consensus, unclear, or more considerations are needed: The source is a little bit reliable (i.e. neither generally reliable nor generally unreliable), and can be used depending on context. Editors may not have been able to agree on if the source is appropriate, or may have agreed that it is only reliable in certain situations. It is important to consider each source on a case-by-case basis.
•    Generally unreliable: Editors agree that the source is questionable in most cases. The source have a poor editorial team or have a bad reputation for fact-checking. Other than in very rare cases, the source should not be used. Even in these rare cases, it is usually better to find a reliable source. If no source can be found, it may mean that the information is not correct. However, the source can sometimes be used for very basic information, or when a subject is describing themself.
•    Deprecated: There is agreement that the source cannot be used. It can only be used when a subject is describing themself.
•    Blacklisted: Due to abuse, the source is banned on Wikipedia or is on the Wikimedia global spam blacklist.

Sources

Note: This list is made using the English Wikipedia.

Source	Status	Summary
ABC News		Editors agree that ABC News, the news division of American Broadcasting Company is generally reliable.
The Atlantic		Editors agree that The Atlantic is generally reliable. However, articles in the "Ideas" section fits under WP:RSOPINION.
BBC		BBC is generally reliable. This includes BBC News, BBC documentaries, and BBC online. This does not include user-generated content, such as h2g2, the BBC Doomsday Project, and Collective.
Forbes		Editors agree that Forbes articles written by their staff is generally reliable. Forbes also publishes "top" lists which can be used in articles.
Forbes contributors		Editors agree that Forbes articles written by Senior Contributors or Contributors has little review, and is generally unreliable.
The New York Times		As a newspaper of record, editors agree that The New York Times is generally reliable.
The Independent		Editors agree that The Independent is generally reliable for topics that aren't related to medicine.
USA Today		Editors agree that USA Today is generally reliable. As the largest newspaper in the U.S., editors note that the newspaper has a very good editing system and its centrism.
Variety (magazine)		As a top trade magazine, editors agree that Variety is generally reliable, and is the best source for information related to entertainment.
VentureBeat		Editors agree that VentureBeat is generally reliable. It is especially good for articles related to business, technology, and video games.
The Wall Street Journal		As a newspaper of record, editors agree that The Wall Street Journal is generally reliable.
The Washington Post		As a newspaper of record, editors agree that The Washington Post is generally reliable.

Categories

State-sponsored fake news sites

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.

Paid reporting in Indian news organizations

Even famous and notable Indian news organizations (print, television, and web) mix regular news with sponsored content and press release writing. Sometimes there is no disclosure, so it can be confusing.

Be careful when using Indian sources to establish notability. It is important to look at the tone and language of the article and if there is a writer named.

Examples of sponsored content include supplements published by The Times of India; the Special section of the Daily Pioneer; the Brand Wire section of ABP Live; the Press Release News or the Digpu News Network sections of Firstpost; the Business Spotlight section of Outlook; the Brand Connect section of Forbes India; the Brand Solutions produced content on The Indian Express.

If in doubt, it is better to use a different source.

Student media

Reputable student news sources, such as The Ubyssey, are considered generally reliable sources for news on their school and local community. They can sometimes be good to use on other topics, but professional sources are better when they can be found.

Tabloids

Tabloids are a type of news reporting that tries to get people to click on it, and go viral. Editors agree that even notable tabloids should be used with care.

They sometimes use rumors and use incorrect information.

Newspaper of record

Newspapers of record are usually generally reliable.

References