{{Infobox
| title = [[SourceWatch]]
| 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:Argentina - NO symbol.svg|20px|Generally unreliable|link=]] Generally unreliable: Editors show consensus that the source is [[WP:QUESTIONABLE|questionable]] in most cases.
}}
As an [[WP:UGC|open wiki]], SourceWatch is considered generally unreliable. SourceWatch is operated by the [[Center for Media and Democracy]].
== 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.''
* [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 60#Sourcewatch]]
* [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 75#Sourcewatch]]
* [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 214#Is SourceWatch a reliable source under the Exceptions section of UGC?]]
* Simple summary of prior discussions: '''TBD'''
{{DEFAULTSORT:SourceWatch, 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-gu" id="SourceWatch"
| [[SourceWatch]]
| {{WP:RSPSTATUS|gu}}
| [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 60#Sourcewatch|1]] [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 75#Sourcewatch|2]] [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 214#Is SourceWatch a reliable source under the Exceptions section of UGC?|3]]
| {{WP:RSPLAST|2016|stale=n}}
| As an [[WP:UGC|open wiki]], SourceWatch is considered generally unreliable. SourceWatch is operated by the [[Center for Media and Democracy]].
| {{WP:RSPUSES|sourcewatch.org}}
|}