Red Ventures

Red Ventures

(not part of original row)
source type	foobar (not part of original row)
publisher	Fooland (state-funded media) (not part of original row)
classification	Generally unreliable: Editors show consensus that the source is questionable in most cases.

There is consensus that the online properties of Red Ventures are generally unreliable post-acquisition. 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. No consensus was reached with respect to Red Ventures' print publications. Sources sold by Red Ventures in 2022 to Fandom were not discussed in the RfC. See also: CNET (November 2022–present), ZDNet (October 2020–present).

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 424#Something strange is going on with ZDNet

• 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
Red Ventures WP:REDVENTURESWP:REDVENTURES 📌		2024	2024	There is consensus that the online properties of Red Ventures are generally unreliable post-acquisition. 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. No consensus was reached with respect to Red Ventures' print publications. Sources sold by Red Ventures in 2022 to Fandom were not discussed in the RfC. See also: CNET (November 2022–present), ZDNet (October 2020–present).