Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in source reliability discussions: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 20:48, 22 September 2024

Latest revision as of 22:30, 15 August 2025

(6 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{essay|interprets=the [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliability of sources]]}}

{{nutshell|shortcut=WP:ATARS|When discussing thesource reliability ofat the [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard|reliable sources noticeboard]], article talk pages, and elsewhere, arguments should be grounded in the [[WP:RSReliable sources|reliable sources guideline]]; this page highlights some arguments to avoid.}}

{{Arguments}}

== "Just a vote" ==

* '''Deprecate''' {{dummy signature|IDontTrustAnything}}

* '''Generally reliable''' {{dummy signature|EverythingIsTrue}}

Again, [[WP:POLL|polling is not a substitute for discsusion]]. Consensus is weighted based off of arguments grounded in policy, not based on votes.

== Trusted by X ==

* '''Generally unreliable''' because the browser extension [[NewsGuard]] says so. {{dummy signature|MythDebunker}}

* '''Generally reliable''' because it is neutral according to [[Media Bias/Fact Check]]. {{dummy signature|TruthSeeker}}

* '''Additional considerations apply''' as it was rated poor by [[Ad Fontes Media]] {{dummy signature|NuancedReader}}

News monitoring organizations are unable to assess whether a source complies with all of Wikipedia's policies. A source being rated poorly by multiple organizations is indicative that it is potentially unsuitable for inclusion on Wikipedia, but not always.

== Citations on Wikipedia ==

*'''Generally reliable''': It's cited over 1,000 times on Wikipedia

*'''Generally unreliable''': It's not cited anywhere on Wikipedia

== Popularity ==

*'''Generally reliable''': The website's Facebook page has over 1 million likes

Line 12 ⟶ 28:

== Opinions about content ==

*'''Generally unreliable''': That site mostly spews trivial information

{{Arguments to avoid}}

[[Category:Wikipedia essays about reliable sources]]