The Daily Dot

The Daily Dot

(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

There is no consensus regarding the general reliability of The Daily Dot, though it is considered fine for citing non-contentious claims of fact. Some editors have objected to its tone or consider it to be biased or opinionated; there is community consensus that attribution should be used in topics where the source is known to be biased or when the source is used to support contentious claims of fact. Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article.

Prior discussions

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

• 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
The Daily Dot WP:DAILYDOTWP:DAILYDOT 📌		2022	2022	There is no consensus regarding the general reliability of The Daily Dot, though it is considered fine for citing non-contentious claims of fact. Some editors have objected to its tone or consider it to be biased or opinionated; there is community consensus that attribution should be used in topics where the source is known to be biased or when the source is used to support contentious claims of fact. Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article.	1