Gizmodo

Gizmodo

(not part of original row)
source type	foobar (not part of original row)
publisher	Fooland (state-funded media) (not part of original row)
classification	Usually reliable for typical purposes

There is consensus that Gizmodo is generally reliable for technology, popular culture, and entertainment. There is no consensus on whether it is generally reliable for controversial statements. There is consensus that AI-generated articles are generally unreliable; Gizmodo's parent company, G/O Media, began releasing such pieces in July 2023, usually under the byline "Gizmodo Bot".^[1]

Prior discussions

Please add links to other significant discussions. When in doubt, read and rely on the discussions themselves, rather than the simple summary.

• WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 221#paleofuture.gizmodo.com in Napoleon Hill
• WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 270#Is Gizmodo considered a reliable source?
• WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 346#Some reliable sources
• WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 409#G/O Media to start using AI

• Simple summary of prior discussions: TBD

Notes

References

Original table row for comparison

(remove this when this source page is ready to go live)

Perennial sources

Source	Status (legend)	Discussions			Use
		List	Last	Summary
Gizmodo WP:GIZMODOWP:GIZMODO 📌		1 2 3 4	2023	There is consensus that Gizmodo is generally reliable for technology, popular culture, and entertainment. There is no consensus on whether it is generally reliable for controversial statements. There is consensus that AI-generated articles are generally unreliable; Gizmodo's parent company, G/O Media, began releasing such pieces in July 2023, usually under the byline "Gizmodo Bot".[1]	1