Merged sources demo (T414766)

This page demonstrates T414766: sources with multiple reliability assessments (split by time period or topic in the current RSP table) get one merged candidate page per source instead of one page per table row. Each section shows the source's original table rows followed by a link to its merged page.

Al-Manar

Merged candidate page: Al-Manar

Perennial sources

Source	Status (legend)	Discussions			Use
		List	Last	Summary
Al-Manar (general topics)		2024	2024	The 2024 RfC established no consensus on the reliability of Al-Manar. As a publication of Hezbollah, editors believe it may be usable for attributed statements from Hezbollah under the conditions of WP:ABOUTSELF. It may also be usable for non-controversial topics on Lebanese culture depending on the context.	1
Al-Manar (controversial topics)		2024	2024	In the 2024 RfC, editors generally agreed that Al-Manar is generally unreliable for topics that are controversial, especially with regards to the Arab–Israeli conflict.	1

Anadolu Agency

Merged candidate page: Anadolu Agency

Perennial sources

Source	Status (legend)	Discussions			Use
		List	Last	Summary
Anadolu Agency (general topics) (AA) WP:ANADOLU 📌		2019	2023	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.	1   2
Anadolu Agency (controversial topics, international politics) (AA) WP:AAPOLITICS 📌		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.	1   2

Anti-Defamation League

Merged candidate page: Anti-Defamation League

Perennial sources

Source	Status (legend)	Discussions			Use
		List	Last	Summary
Anti-Defamation League (ADL) (excluding the Israeli–Palestinian conflict and Zionism) WP:RSPADL 📌		2020  2024	2025	There is consensus that, outside the context of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, the ADL is a generally reliable source, particularly for topics related to hate groups and extremism in the U.S. There is no consensus that the ADL must always be attributed, but there is consensus that its labelling of organisations and individuals (especially as antisemitic) should be attributed. Some editors regard the ADL's opinion pieces as unreliable and should only be used with attribution. In the 2024 RfC, there was rough consensus that the ADL's hate symbol database is reliable for identifying the existence of a symbol and for straightforward descriptive facts, but not for more complex details such as a symbol's history. In such cases, in-text attribution to the ADL may be advisable.	1   2
Anti-Defamation League (ADL) (antisemitism, excluding Israel or Zionism) WP:ADLAS 📌		2020  2024	2024	The ADL can roughly be taken as reliable on the topic of antisemitism when Israel and Zionism are not concerned, and its reliability on antisemitism is a case-by-case matter. There is consensus that the labelling of organisations and individuals by the ADL as antisemitic should be attributed. The ADL has also demonstrated a habit of conflating criticism of the Israeli government's actions with antisemitism and defending pro-Israel figures accused of antisemitism.	1
Anti-Defamation League (ADL) (Israeli–Palestinian conflict, including related antisemitism) WP:ADLPIA 📌		2024	2024	There is consensus that the ADL is a generally unreliable source for the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, due to significant evidence that the ADL acts as a pro-Israeli advocacy group and has repeatedly published false and misleading statements as fact, un-retracted, regarding the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. The general unreliability of the ADL extends to the intersection of the topics of antisemitism and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.	1

Atlas Obscura

Merged candidate page: Atlas Obscura

Perennial sources

Source	Status (legend)	Discussions			Use
		List	Last	Summary
Atlas Obscura ("places" articles) WP:AOPLACES 📌		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

Bloomberg L.P.

Merged candidate page: Bloomberg L.P.

Perennial sources

Source	Status (legend)	Discussions			Use
		List	Last	Summary
Bloomberg (Bloomberg News, Bloomberg Businessweek) WP:BLOOMBERG 📌		1 2 3 4 5	2025	Bloomberg publications, including Bloomberg News and Bloomberg Businessweek, are considered generally reliable for news and business topics. See also: Bloomberg profiles.	1   2
Bloomberg profiles WP:BLOOMBERGPROFILES 📌		1 2	2018	Bloomberg company and executive profiles are generally considered to be based on company press releases and should only be used as a source for uncontroversial information. There is consensus that these profiles should not be used to establish notability. Some editors consider these profiles to be akin to self-published sources. See also: Bloomberg.	1

Business Insider

Merged candidate page: Business Insider

Perennial sources

Source	Status (legend)	Discussions			Use
		List	Last	Summary
Business Insider (excluding culture) (Insider, Markets Insider, Tech Insider) WP:BI 📌 WP:BUSINESSINSIDER 📌		2020  2022  2025	2025	In the 2025 RfC, editors determined that any LLM-generated writing disclosed as written using AI is generally unreliable. There is otherwise no consensus on the overall reliability of Business Insider. The site's syndicated content, which may not be clearly marked, should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher. See also: Business Insider (culture).	1   2   3
Business Insider (culture) WP:BICULTURE 📌		2021  2021	2021	There is consensus that Business Insider is generally reliable for its coverage in its culture section. See also: Business Insider (excluding culture).	1   2
Business Insider (AI content)		2025	2024	Consistent with several recent decisions our community has made about LLM-generated writing, consensus here is that Wikipedians don't trust it at all. Business Insider claims that humans will review the LLM-generated content, but Wikipedians are remarkably cynical about this. Consensus is that anything published with a disclosure about "Business Insider AI" is (a) generally unreliable and (b) not an indicator of notability at AFD.

CNET

Merged candidate page: CNET

Perennial sources

Source	Status (legend)	Discussions			Use
		List	Last	Summary
CNET (pre–October 2020)		17[a]	2023	CNET is considered generally reliable for its technology-related articles prior to its acquisition by Red Ventures in October 2020. In 2023, Red Ventures began deleting thousands of old CNET articles; website content may no longer be available unless archived.[1]	1
CNET (October 2020 – October 2022)		1 2 3 4	2025	CNET was acquired by digital marketing company Red Ventures in October 2020, leading to a deterioration in editorial standards. Staff writers were pressured by company executives to publish content more favorably to advertisers in order to benefit Red Ventures' business dealings; this included both news stories and reviews.	1
CNET (November 2022 – present) WP:CNET 📌		2024  2025	2025	Concerns over CNET's advertiser-driven editorial content remain unresolved. Separately, in November 2022, it began deploying an experimental AI tool to rapidly generate articles riddled with factual inaccuracies and affiliate links, with the purpose of increasing SEO rankings. CNET never formally disclosed its use of AI until Futurism and The Verge published reports exposing its actions. An AI tool now announced to be paused wrote more than 70 finance-related articles and published them under the byline "CNET Money Staff", over half of which received corrections after mounting pressure. In August 2024 CNET was purchased by Ziff Davis, which may mean that the reasons for considering it unreliable may no longer apply.	1

The Daily Telegraph

Merged candidate page: The Daily Telegraph

Perennial sources

Source	Status (legend)	Discussions			Use
		List	Last	Summary
The Daily Telegraph (UK) (excluding transgender topics) (The Telegraph, The Sunday Telegraph) WP:TELEGRAPH 📌		2022	2026	There is consensus that The Daily Telegraph (also known as The Telegraph) is generally reliable. Some editors believe that The Daily Telegraph is biased or opinionated for politics. Unrelated to The Daily Telegraph (Sydney).	1
The Daily Telegraph (UK) (transgender topics) (The Telegraph, The Sunday Telegraph)		2024	2025	In regards to transgender issues, there is no consensus on the reliability of The Daily Telegraph. Editors consider The Telegraph biased or opinionated on the topic, and its statements should be attributed.	1

Forbes.com

Merged candidate page: Forbes.com

Perennial sources

Source	Status (legend)	Discussions			Use
		List	Last	Summary
Forbes.com (5 August 2010 – present) WP:FORBES 📌		2026	2026	Forbes.com articles published after 5 August 2010 include ones written by their staff and by Forbes.com contributors. There is no consensus on the general reliability of Forbes.com content created after this date due to concerns around contributors-turned-staff's articles being retroactively modified to appear written by staff. Articles are considered generally reliable if it is ascertained their authors were part of the Forbes staff at the time of the article's writing, and considered generally unreliable if the opposite is ascertained.	1
Forbes.com (pre–5 August 2010) and Forbes (print issue) WP:OLDFORBES 📌 WP:FORBESMAGAZINE 📌		2026	2026	Forbes.com articles published before 5 August 2010 (the date when contributors were introduced to the website) and any articles featured in print issue Forbes magazines are considered generally reliable. Forbes.com content published after this date is covered by the previous entry on this list.	1
Forbes.com non-staff authored articles WP:FORBESCON 📌 WP:FORBESADVISOR 📌		2021	2026	Most articles on Forbes.com are written by non-staff authors, mainly by Forbes "Contributors", "Senior Contributors" or "Brand Contributors", has minimal editorial oversight, and such articles are considered generally unreliable. Other varieties of non-staff authored articles include those created by "Subscribers", "Forbes Councils" and "Forbes Advisors". There is consensus that non-staff authored articles should be treated as self-published sources. They should never be used for third-party claims about living persons. Non-staff authored articles may occasionally be considered reliable if they qualify for the subject-matter expert exemption for self-published sources. Check the byline to determine whether an article is written by a "Forbes Staff" member, "Contributor", "Senior Contributor", "Brand Contributor" or something else. In addition, check underneath the byline to see whether it was published in a print issue of Forbes. You must ascertain through archived versions of the article that the contributor was staff at the time of the publication, as the latest byline reflects the current role of the writer. See also: Forbes.	1   2

Fox News

Merged candidate page: Fox News

Perennial sources

Source	Status (legend)	Discussions			Use
		List	Last	Summary
Fox News[b] (news excluding politics and science) WP:FOXNEWS 📌		2010  2020  2023	2024	Historically, there has been consensus that Fox News is generally reliable for news coverage on topics other than politics and science. However, many editors expressed concerns about the reliability of Fox News for any topic in a 2023 RFC. No formal consensus was reached on the matter, though. See also: Fox News (politics and science), Fox News (talk shows).	1   2
Fox News[b] (politics and science) WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS 📌 WP:FOXNEWSSCIENCE 📌		2010  2020  2022  2023	2024	There is consensus Fox News is generally unreliable for the reporting of politics, especially from November 2020 onwards. On the matter of science, and on the matter of pre-November 2020 politics, there is a consensus that the reliability of Fox News is unclear and that additional considerations apply to its use. As a result, Fox News is considered marginally reliable and generally does not qualify as a "high-quality source" for the purpose of substantiating exceptional claims in these topic areas. Editors perceive Fox News to be biased or opinionated for politics; use in-text attribution for opinions. See also: Fox News (news excluding politics and science), Fox News (talk shows).	1
Fox News[b] (talk shows) WP:FOXNEWSTALKSHOWS 📌		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9	2024	Fox News talk shows, including Hannity, Tucker Carlson Tonight, The Ingraham Angle, and Fox & Friends, should not be used for statements of fact but can sometimes be used for attributed opinions. See also: Fox News (news excluding politics and science), Fox News (politics and science).	1

Geographic Names Information System

Merged candidate page: Geographic Names Information System

Perennial sources

Source	Status (legend)	Discussions			Use
		List	Last	Summary
Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) (names and locations)		2021	2022	The Geographic Names Information System is a United States-based geographical database. It is generally reliable for its place names and locations/coordinates. Editors should take care that GNIS uses a different convention for its coordinates, using a particular feature of a location rather than the geometric center that most WikiProjects use.	1
Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) (feature classes)		2021	2021	The Geographic Names Information System is a United States-based geographical database. It is generally unreliable for its feature classes and it should not be used to determine the notability of geographic features as it does not meet the legal recognition requirement.	1

GEOnet Names Server

Merged candidate page: GEOnet Names Server

Perennial sources

Source	Status (legend)	Discussions			Use
		List	Last	Summary
GEOnet Names Server (GNS) (names and locations)		2021	2021	The GEOnet Names Server is a United States-based geographical database that covers non-U.S. countries. It is considered to be close to generally reliable for its place names and locations/coordinates, though there are concerns that GNS may not always be accurate and sometimes report the existence of places that do not even exist. Editors are advised to exercise caution when using it.	1
GEOnet Names Server (GNS) (feature classes)		2021	2021	The GEOnet Names Server is a United States-based geographical database that covers non-U.S. countries. It is generally unreliable for its feature classes and it should not be used to determine the notability of geographic features as it does not meet the legal recognition requirement.	1

The Guardian

Merged candidate page: The Guardian

Perennial sources

Source	Status (legend)	Discussions			Use
		List	Last	Summary
The Guardian (TheGuardian.com, The Manchester Guardian, The Guardian Weekly, The Observer) WP:GUARDIAN 📌 WP:THEGUARDIAN 📌		See these discussions of The Guardian:	2025	There is consensus that The Guardian is generally reliable. The Guardian's op-eds should be handled with WP:RSOPINION. Some editors believe The Guardian is biased or opinionated for politics. See also: The Guardian blogs. Guardian Media sold The Observer to Tortoise Media with effect from 22 April 2025.	1   2   3
The Guardian blogs WP:GUARDIANBLOG 📌		See these discussions of The Guardian blogs:	2020	Most editors say that The Guardian blogs should be treated as newspaper blogs or opinion pieces due to reduced editorial oversight. Check the bottom of the article for a "blogposts" tag to determine whether the page is a blog post or a non-blog article. See also: The Guardian.	1   2   3

HuffPost

Merged candidate page: HuffPost

Perennial sources

Source	Status (legend)	Discussions			Use
		List	Last	Summary
HuffPost (excluding politics) (The Huffington Post) WP:HUFF 📌 WP:HUFFPOST 📌		2020	2021	A 2020 RfC found HuffPost staff writers fairly reliable for factual reporting on non-political topics, but notes that they may give prominence to topics that support their political bias and less prominence to, or omit, things that contradict it. HuffPost's reliability has increased since 2012; articles before 2012 are less reliable and should be treated with more caution. HuffPost uses clickbait headlines to attract attention to its articles, thus the body text of any HuffPost article is considered more reliable than its headline. See also: HuffPost (politics), HuffPost contributors.	1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16
HuffPost (politics) (The Huffington Post) WP:HUFFPOLITICS 📌		2020	2024	In the 2020 RfC, there was no consensus on HuffPost staff writers' reliability for political topics. The community considers HuffPost openly biased on American politics. There is no consensus on its reliability for international politics. See also: HuffPost (excluding politics), HuffPost contributors.	1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16
HuffPost contributors (The Huffington Post) WP:HUFFPOCON 📌		2020	2020	Until 2018, the U.S. edition of HuffPost published content written by contributors with near-zero editorial oversight. These contributors generally did not have a reputation for fact-checking, and most editors consider them highly variable in quality. Editors show consensus for treating HuffPost contributor articles as self-published sources, unless the article was written by a subject-matter expert. HuffPost contributor articles should never be used for third-party claims about living persons. In 2018, HuffPost discontinued its contributor platform, but old contributor articles are still online. Check the byline to determine whether an article is written by a staff member or a "Contributor" (also referred to as an "Editorial Partner"). See also: HuffPost (excluding politics), HuffPost (politics).	1   2

Mashable

Merged candidate page: Mashable

Perennial sources

Source	Status (legend)	Discussions			Use
		List	Last	Summary
Mashable (non-sponsored content) WP:MASHABLE 📌		2021	2021	In a 2021 RfC, editors achieved a consensus that while non-sponsored content from Mashable is generally fine, Mashable tends towards less formal writing and is geared at a particular niche (tech news and pop culture). As such, non-sponsored content should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, especially if the subject matter is outside of Mashable's usual focus.	1
Mashable (sponsored content)		2021	2021	In the RfC, editors achieved a consensus that extra attention needs to be paid when it comes to sponsored content, especially ensuring that the content was written by Mashable staff and not the sponsor themselves.	1

Metro (British newspaper)

Merged candidate page: Metro (British newspaper)

Perennial sources

Source	Status (legend)	Discussions			Use
		List	Last	Summary
Metro (UK) WP:METRO 📌		See these discussions of Metro (UK): 1	2025	The reliability of Metro has been compared to that of the Daily Mail and other British tabloids. Articles published in the print newspaper are considered more reliable than articles published only on the metro.co.uk website. The newspaper articles were previously segregated online via the metro.news domain and are presently tagged under "metro newspaper" at the metro.co.uk domain.	1   2
Metro (UK) (soap operas) WP:METROSOAPS 📌		1 2 3 A	2025	There is consensus that Metro is reliable as a source on soap operas.	1   2

New York Post

Merged candidate page: New York Post

Perennial sources

Source	Status (legend)	Discussions			Use
		List	Last	Summary
New York Post (NY Post, New York Evening Post, Page Six) (excluding entertainment) WP:NYPOST 📌		2020	2025	There is consensus the New York Post is generally unreliable for factual reporting, especially with regard to politics, particularly New York City politics. A tabloid newspaper, editors criticise its lack of concern for fact-checking or corrections, including examples of outright fabrication. Editors consider the New York Post more reliable before it changed ownership in 1976, and particularly unreliable for coverage involving the New York City Police Department. A 2024 RfC concluded that the New York Post is marginally reliable for entertainment coverage; see below.	1   2
New York Post (NY Post, New York Evening Post, Page Six, Decider) (entertainment) WP:DECIDER 📌 WP:PAGESIX 📌		2024	2024	There is consensus that the New York Post (nypost.com  ) and its sub-publications Decider (decider.com  ) and Page Six are considered to be marginally reliable sources for entertainment coverage, including reviews, but should not be used for controversial statements related to living persons.	1   2   3

NewsNation

Merged candidate page: NewsNation

Perennial sources

Source	Status (legend)	Discussions			Use
		List	Last	Summary
NewsNation (general topics) WP:NEWSNATION 📌		2025	2025	There is a consensus that NewsNation is generally reliable for matters not related to UFOs or UAPs. See also: NewsNation (UFOs, UAPs).	1
NewsNation (UFOs, UAPs) WP:UFONATION 📌		2025	2025	There is a consensus that NewsNation is generally unreliable for the topic of UFOs or UAPs. Editors pointed to NewsNation's lead reporter on UFOs, Ross Coulthart, having a well-documented history of promoting conspiracy theories in that topic area. See also: NewsNation (general topics).	1

Newsweek

Merged candidate page: Newsweek

Perennial sources

Source	Status (legend)	Discussions			Use
		List	Last	Summary
Newsweek (pre-2013)		2019	2019	There is consensus that articles from Newsweek pre-2013 are generally reliable for news covered during that time. In 2011, Newsweek was a reputable magazine with only some minor problems while it was owned by The Newsweek Daily Beast Company (which also owned The Daily Beast). Blogs under Newsweek, including The Gaggle, should be handled with the WP:NEWSBLOG policy. See also: Newsweek (2013–present).	1
Newsweek (2013–present) WP:NEWSWEEK 📌		2019	2024	Unlike articles before 2013, Newsweek articles since 2013 are not generally reliable. From 2013 to 2018, Newsweek was owned and operated by IBT Media, the parent company of International Business Times. IBT Media introduced a number of bad practices to the once reputable magazine and mainly focused on clickbait headlines over quality journalism. Its current relationship with IBT Media is unclear, and Newsweek's quality has not returned to its status prior to the 2013 purchase. Many editors have noted that there are several exceptions to this standard, so consensus is to evaluate Newsweek content on a case-by-case basis. In addition, as of April 2024, Newsweek has disclosed that they make use of AI assistance to write articles. See also: Newsweek (pre-2013).	1

Polygon (website)

Merged candidate page: Polygon (website)

Perennial sources

Source	Status (legend)	Discussions			Use
		List	Last	Summary
Polygon (pre–May 2025)		1 2 A B C D	2020	Polygon is considered generally reliable for video games and pop culture related topics during its ownership by Vox Media. See also: The Verge, Vox, New York	1
Polygon (May 2025 – present) WP:POLYGON 📌		A B	2025	In May 2025, Vox Media sold Polygon to Valnet and promptly laid off most Polygon staff; as of May 2025, this event's long-term impact on reliability is unknown. Editors have expressed concern over the site's ownership by Valnet, which runs several content farms. Articles should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis until the status of editorial deterioration is confirmed. See also: WP:VALNET	1

Rolling Stone

Merged candidate page: Rolling Stone

Perennial sources

Source	Status (legend)	Discussions			Use
		List	Last	Summary
Rolling Stone (culture) WP:ROLLINGSTONE 📌 WP:ROLLINGSTONECULTURE 📌		2021	2021	There is consensus that Rolling Stone has generally reliable coverage on culture matters (i.e., films, music, entertainment, etc.). Rolling Stone's opinion pieces and reviews, as well as any contentious statements regarding living persons, should only be used with 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. See also Rolling Stone (politics and society), 2011–present, Rolling Stone (Culture Council).	1
Rolling Stone (politics and society, 2011–present) WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS 📌		2021	2023	According to a 2021 RfC discussion, there is unanimous consensus among editors that Rolling Stone is generally unreliable for politically and societally sensitive issues reported since 2011 (inclusive), though it must be borne in mind that this date is an estimate and not a definitive cutoff, as the deterioration of journalistic practices happened gradually. Some editors have said that low-quality reporting also appeared in some preceding years, but a specific date after which the articles are considered generally unreliable has not been proposed. Previous consensus was that Rolling Stone was generally reliable for political and societal topics before 2011. Most editors say that Rolling Stone is a partisan source in the field of politics, and that their statements in this field should be attributed. Moreover, medical or scientific claims should not be sourced to the publication.	1
Rolling Stone (Culture Council) WP:ROLLINGSTONECON 📌		2021	2021	There is unanimous consensus among editors that Culture Council articles (of URL form rollingstone.com/culture-council/*) are self-published sources and are, in most aspects, equivalent to Forbes- and HuffPost-contributors. Editors, however, have also expressed concern that at least some of the content published is promotional and thus not usable. Editors should thus determine on a case-by-case basis whether the opinions published there are independent and also if they constitute due weight. Usage of these sources for third-party claims in biographies of living persons as well as medical or scientific claims is not allowed.	1   2

Sixth Tone

Merged candidate page: Sixth Tone

Perennial sources

Source	Status (legend)	Discussions			Use
		List	Last	Summary
Sixth Tone (general topics)		2020	2020	Sixth Tone is usable for general non-political topics, such as Chinese society and culture.	1
Sixth Tone (politics)		2020	2020	Sixth Tone is published by the Shanghai United Media Group, which is government-controlled. Editors consider Sixth Tone generally unreliable for politics.	1

Sports Illustrated

Merged candidate page: Sports Illustrated

Perennial sources

Source	Status (legend)	Discussions			Use
		List	Last	Summary
Sports Illustrated (pre–June 2019)		1 2 3 4	2025	There is a general consensus that work by Sports Illustrated pre-acquisition by Maven Networks in June 2019 is considered generally reliable for sports-related news.	1
Sports Illustrated (June 2019 – present) WP:RSPSI 📌		1 2 3 4	2025	There is a general consensus that at least some articles by Sports Illustrated post-acquisition by Maven Networks in June 2019 are considered unreliable. Following the purchase, Maven employed independent contractors for low pay and no benefits to write for the magazine, leading to a gradual decline in quality. This culminated in November 2023 when it was revealed that artificial intelligence (AI) had been used to write product review articles with little to no human oversight. While some veteran writers recognized as subject matter experts remain reliable on a case-by-case basis, editors should exercise caution to ensure that articles were not produced by AI or uncredited authors bylined as "SI Staff".	1

The Washington Free Beacon

Merged candidate page: The Washington Free Beacon

Perennial sources

Source	Status (legend)	Discussions			Use
		List	Last	Summary
The Washington Free Beacon (2012–2018)		2025	2025	Most editors considered the Washington Free Beacon to be generally unreliable as a source during the editorship of Matthew Continetti, particularly for material about BLPs or political topics. There was no consensus to deprecate it in a 2020 discussion, and a 2025 discussion confirmed consensus for its status as generally unreliable.	1
The Washington Free Beacon (2019–present) WP:FREEBEACON 📌		2025	2025	Most editors considered the Washington Free Beacon to have become generally reliable during the editorship of Eliana Johnson. However, some editors consider it a partisan source. All editors should be aware that the Free Beacon sometimes publishes satirical or humorous articles which should be distinguished from their usual journalistic work. Some editors found articles by Andrew Stiles (The Stiles Section) generally unreliable.	1

Wikidata

Merged candidate page: Wikidata

Perennial sources

Source	Status (legend)	Discussions			Use
		List	Last	Summary
Wikidata WP:RSPWD 📌		2013 2018	2024	Wikidata is largely user-generated, and articles should not directly cite Wikidata as a source (just as it would be inappropriate to cite other Wikipedias' articles as sources). See also: Wikidata transcluded statements.	1
Wikidata transcluded statements WP:RSPWDTRANS 📌		2013 2018	2018	Uniquely among WMF sites, Wikidata's statements can be directly transcluded into articles; this is usually done to provide external links or infobox data. For example, more than two million external links from Wikidata are shown through the {{Authority control}} template. There has been controversy over the use of Wikidata in the English Wikipedia due to its infancy, its vandalism issues and its sourcing. While there is no consensus on whether information from Wikidata should be used at all, there is general agreement that any Wikidata statements transcluded need to be just as – or more – reliable compared to Wikipedia content. As such, Module:WikidataIB and some related modules and templates filter unsourced Wikidata statements by default; however, other modules and templates, such as Module:Wikidata, do not. See also: Wikidata (direct citations).	—

ZDNET

Merged candidate page: ZDNET

Perennial sources

Source	Status (legend)	Discussions			Use
		List	Last	Summary
ZDNET (pre-October 2020)		2024	2024	ZDNet is considered generally reliable for technology-related articles prior to its acquisition by Red Ventures in October 2020.	1
ZDNET (October 2020 – present)		2024	2024	ZDNet was acquired by digital marketing company Red Ventures in October 2020. There is consensus that ZDNet, along with other online properties of Red Ventures, is generally unreliable. Editors express concern that Red Ventures, as a matter of policy, uses AI-authored content on its properties in a non-transparent and unreliable manner. ZDNET was purchased by Ziff Davis in August 2024, which may mean that the reasons for considering it unreliable may no longer apply.	1