{{Infobox
| title = [[Quackwatch]]
| image = [[File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-en.svg|100px|alt=logo]] ''(not part of original row)''
| label2 = source type
| data2 = foobar ''(not part of original row)''
| label3 = publisher
| data3 = Fooland (state-funded media) ''(not part of original row)''
| label5 = website
| data5 =
| label6 = classification
| data6 = [[File:Achtung-orange.svg|20px|No consensus|link=]] No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply
}}
Articles written by [[Stephen Barrett]] on Quackwatch are considered generally reliable (as Barrett is a [[WP:EXPERTSOURCE|subject-matter expert]]) and [[WP:SPS|self-published]] (as there is disagreement on the comprehensiveness of Quackwatch's editorial process); Barrett's articles should not be used as a source of information on [[WP:BLPSPS|other living persons]]. Articles written by other authors on Quackwatch are not considered self-published. Many editors believe uses of Quackwatch should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and some editors say its statements should be [[WP:INTEXT|attributed]]. It may be preferable to use the sources cited by Quackwatch instead of Quackwatch itself. Since it often covers [[WP:FRINGE|fringe]] material, [[WP:PARITY|parity of sources]] should be considered.
== Prior discussions ==
{{WP:RSPLinks}}
''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'''
{{DEFAULTSORT:Quackwatch, Perennial sources}}
==Notes==
{{notelist}}
==References==
== Original table row for comparison ==
''(remove this when this source page is ready to go live)''
{{Wikipedia:RSPTableHeader}}
|- class="s-nc" id="Quackwatch"
| [[Quackwatch]]
| {{WP:RSPSTATUS|nc}}
| {{rsnl|282|Is Quackwatch an SPS and thus not allowed as a source on BLPs?|2019|rfc=y}}
| {{WP:RSPLAST|2020}}
| Articles written by [[Stephen Barrett]] on Quackwatch are considered generally reliable (as Barrett is a [[WP:EXPERTSOURCE|subject-matter expert]]) and [[WP:SPS|self-published]] (as there is disagreement on the comprehensiveness of Quackwatch's editorial process); Barrett's articles should not be used as a source of information on [[WP:BLPSPS|other living persons]]. Articles written by other authors on Quackwatch are not considered self-published. Many editors believe uses of Quackwatch should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and some editors say its statements should be [[WP:INTEXT|attributed]]. It may be preferable to use the sources cited by Quackwatch instead of Quackwatch itself. Since it often covers [[WP:FRINGE|fringe]] material, [[WP:PARITY|parity of sources]] should be considered.
| {{WP:RSPUSES|quackwatch.org}}
|}