Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 00:44, 28 July 2025

Revision as of 19:55, 27 August 2025

(9 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)

Line 8:

{{bi|<big>[[#Sources|↓{{pad|0.6em}}''Jump to the list of frequently discussed sources.''{{pad|0.6em}}↓]]</big>}}

TheThis following presentsis a non-exhaustive list of sources whose [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliability]] and use on Wikipedia are frequently discussed. This list summarizes prior consensus and consolidates links to the most in-depth and recent discussions from the [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard|reliable sources noticeboard]] and elsewhere on Wikipedia.

[[WP:CONTEXTMATTERS|Context matters]] tremendously, and some sources may or may not be suitable for certain uses depending on the situation. When in doubt, defer to the linked discussions for more detailed information on a particular source and its use. [[WP:Consensus can change|Consensus can change]], and if more recent discussions considering new evidence or arguments reach a different consensus, this list should be updated to reflect those changes.

Line 24:

===What if a source is not here?===

{{shortcut|WP:RSPMISSING}}

If a source is not listed here, it only means that it has not been the subject of repeated community discussion. That may be because the source is a ''stellar'' source, and we simply never needed to talk about it because it is so obviously reliable,{{efn|This is the case for some of the most prestigious academic journals in the world, like ''[[The Lancet]]'', ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]'', and ''[[Science (journal)|Science]]''.}} or it could mean the source is so obviously poor it never merited discussion. It could mean that the source covers a niche topic,{{efn|For sources in a specific field, more information about their reliability might be provided by specific WikiProjects, such as the lists shown at [[:Category:WikiProject lists of reliable sources]].}} or that it simply fell through the cracks. If you're concerned about any source being used on Wikipedia, you should review the [[WP:RSN|reliable sources noticeboard]] (RSN), following the instructions at the top of that page, where you can "Search the noticeboard archives":

{{mbox

Line 75:

<onlyinclude>{{#ifeq:{{{transcludesection|Inclusion criteria}}}|Inclusion criteria|

For a source to be added to this list, editors generally expect '''two or more significant discussions about the source's reliability in the past, or an uninterrupted [[WP:RFC|request for comment]] on the source's reliability that took place on the [[WP:RSN|reliable sources noticeboard]]'''. For a discussion to be considered significant, most editors expect no fewer than two qualifying participants for RSN discussions where the source's name is in the section heading, and no fewer than three qualifying participants for all other discussions. Qualifying participants are editors who make at least one comment on the source's reliability.

Please do not mass-create shortcuts. Only shortcuts with at least one use should be included on this list.

}}</onlyinclude>

Line 105 ⟶ 107:

-->

{{shortcut|WP:RSPSOURCES|WP:RSPSS|WP:RSPLIST}}

{{Hatnote|'''Note:''' If you add/remove a source in the "[[#Generally unreliable|generally unreliable]]", "[[#Deprecated|deprecated]]", or "[[#Blacklisted|blacklisted]]" categories, please update {{slink|WP:CITEWATCH/SETUP/GENERAL|WP:RSP}}, or leave a note at [[Wikipedia talk:CITEWATCH]] if you need help.}}

<templatestyles src="Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/styles.css" />

{{Compact ToC|center=yes|nobreak=yes|num=yes|0-9=[[#112 Ukraine|0–9]]|a=[[#ABC News|A]]|b=[[#Baidu Baike|B]]|c=[[#The California Globe|C]]|d=[[#The Daily Beast|D]]|e=[[#EADaily|E]]|f=[[#Facebook|F]]|g=[[#Game Developer|G]]|h=[[#Haaretz|H]]|i=[[#Idolator|I]]|j=[[#Jacobin|J]]|k=[[#Kirkus Reviews|K]]|l=[[#Land Transport Guru|L]]|m=[[#Mail & Guardian|M]]|n=[[#The Nation|N]]|o=[[#Occupy Democrats|O]]|p=[[#PanAm Post|P]]|q=[[#Quackwatch|Q]]|r=[[#Radio Free Asia|R]]|s=[[#Salon|S]]|t=[[#Taki's Magazine|T]]|u=[[#Unz|U]]|v=[[#Vanity Fair|V]]|w=[[#The Wall Street Journal|W]]|x=[[#XBIZ|X]]|y=[[#Yahoo News|Y]]|z=[[#ZDNet (pre-October 2020)|Z]]|custom1=Legend}}

Line 130 ⟶ 133:

==Categories==

===Large language models<span class="anchor" id="ChatGPT"></span>===

{{shortcut|WP:RSPLLM|WP:RSPCHATGPT}}

{{See also|Wikipedia:Large language models}}

Per the [[WP:RSML|guideline on sources produced by machine learning]], [[large language model]]s (LLMs) such as [[ChatGPT]] and other [[AI chatbot]]s are unreliable. While LLMs are trained on a vast amount of data and generate responses based on that, they can often provide [[Hallucination (artificial intelligence)|inaccurate or fictitious]] information. The essay [[Wikipedia:Large language models]] recommends against using LLMs to generate references. See {{slink|Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 408|ChatGPT}}.