Mashable (non-sponsored content)

Mashable

(not part of original row)
source type	foobar (not part of original row)
publisher	Fooland (state-funded media) (not part of original row)
classification	No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply

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.

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 4#Techblogs
• WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 16#Blogs?
• WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 41#Mashable.com as a reference for Facebook
• WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 88#Blogs as sources
• WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 240#Request: RS check on BLP
• WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 264#Reliability of sources that put affiliate links in their reviews

• 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
Mashable (non-sponsored content) WP:MASHABLEWP: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