Wikipedia talk:Potentially unreliable sources

This essay
I started in my userspace, but I think this is OK in Wikipedia space. As a courtesy, please let me know if you plan any major changes. Fences &amp;  Windows  20:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Why only RT
Why is only RT here? Why not CNN, or FOX News, or MSNBC, all of which are just as unreliable, if not more so? Why not BBC News? I can't see any justification for singling out RT in this regard. -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * They're not state-run. ViperSnake151   Talk  04:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The fact that CNN, FOX News, MSNBC and other Western media are not state-run, does not mean they are more reliable. There are reports saying that only a score of corporations (or billionairs) control more than 50% of mass media in the United States. There is a reason for concern about the neutrality and reliability of any news outlet, since there is always vested interest by owners, be it government of businesses. Also, I recommend a Guardian article "Russian news may be biased – but so is much western media" by Piers Robinson for further reading. 194.28.238.3 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If they're not politically independent of the country's government (which is the case with RT), then they are much less reliable than business-run enterprises such as CNN, FOX News and MSNBC. That's a plain and simple fact of life. The comparison cannot accurately be made. Ref (chew) (do) 22:52, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Why is this project page even allowed?
Talk about POV pushing. What happened to NPOV? Don't believe everything you read. Corroborate the story with trusted sources, and stay away from partisan sources. They have an agenda. Atsme  &#9775; Consult  01:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that editors should use any sources which the editor trusts? Editors merely copy any ideas they trust from other places? Johnuniq (talk) 02:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Corroborate the story with trusted sources - trusted (adj), not (noun)- also read Verifiability to see if the sources you want to use actually pass the smell test. What I'm suggesting is that there is far too much POV pushing, partisanship, media bias and advocacy going on to trust or in this case distrust a list of sources in an essay wherein the disclaimer at the top of the page states: Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.  I'm not a skeptic - I'm a realist.  Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  06:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Mistaken Inclusion of Conservative Journals
Just because they are right-wing does not automatically make them unreliable. They follow all the accepted standards of journalism or medical research. Their inclusion is not supported by the citations provided

American College of Pediatricians

Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons

Energy & Environment

Cyberpunkas (talk) 21:48, 2 July 2016 (UTC)


 * To take American College of Pediatricians as an example: One of its founders describes it as a group "with Judeo-Christian, traditional values that is open to pediatric medical professionals of all religions" provided that they "hold true to the group's core beliefs: ... that the traditional family unit, headed by an opposite-sex couple, poses far fewer risk factors in the adoption and raising of children." In other words, they jettison any data, as a matter of policy, that don't support their foregone conclusions, while they gleefully publish data that do. They are, ipso facto, not a reliable source. Largoplazo (talk) 23:52, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Your accusation taht they jettison data as a matter of policy is not supported by the quote. They are reliable until proven otherwise. Cyberpunkas (talk) 16:12, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It would be a logical contradiction of their policy to accept such data, so, yes, it's inherent in their quote. And it concerns me that, in a world full of sloppy thinkers and outright hucksters, you feel that an encyclopedia should accept reliability as the default condition, rather than establishing criteria for imputing reliability, as Wikipedia does. In this case: From the proposition "If you present data that contradict our principles, we will ban you from our society", it follows that they aren't publishing data that contradict their principles. End of proof. QED. Largoplazo (talk) 22:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


 * See American_College_of_Pediatricians (and the sources that section cites). Being "right-wing" does not make them unreliable. Being unreliable makes them unreliable. The problem isn't their ideology, politics, religion, etc. per se. The problem is when an ideology, political position, religious perspective, etc. leads a publication to purport factual/scientific basis for unscientific/pseudoscientific statements/positions. It's not the sole domain of the right, of course. The left has their own conflicts with e.g. the science of GMOs. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 15:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Also, this is not Wikipedia's "list of unreliable sources" such that being listed here means a source cannot be used. It's not a policy or guideline. It's an essay to provide guidance based on past discussions to avoid having the same disputes over and over. For specific sources used in a specific context, the best place to ask is WP:RSN. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 15:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

How come The Guardian is allowed?
They write left-wing opinion pieces and push it as unbiased news articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinosaurdracula (talk • contribs) 08:03, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Some RSN threads concerning The Guardian (or where it is prominently discussed) since 2014: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,11, 12, 13, 14. In those, The Guardian is usually compared to other esteemed papers.  In others, The Guardian is confirmed as a generally reliable source.  In some, there are non-plausible debates about it being notably unreliable.  — Paleo  Neonate  - 11:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh and about the "left-wing opinion pieces" claim: in some of the above, this is also argued, although answers to that often assert that it is not left-wing but possibly liberal, in one instance pointing out that any source not doing climate change denialism is commonly considered left-wing by right-wing editors... basically a debate that is not about the source's general reliability. — Paleo  Neonate  - 11:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The Washington Times
The Washington Times? In chronological order since 2014: 1, 2, 3, 4. Conversations suggest that although it should not necessarily be banned, its usage is often discouraged. When multiple sources report on the same subject, another source is a better choice; when only WT covers a topic, it is suspicious... — Paleo Neonate  - 09:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Media Matters for America on Hillary Clinton and Her Critics During the 2016 US Presidential Campaign
In [https://newrepublic.com/article/139385/happens-media-matters-post-hillary-world "What Happens to Media Matters in a Post-Hillary World?" by Clio Chang And Alex Shephard,] The New Republic said: "'Employees were asked to stay late or work on the weekends specifically to cover Clinton, which many felt came at the expense of other stories and the organization’s mission. Nearly every former staffer we spoke to felt that researchers, in particular, were underpaid and overworked, and that these problems often surfaced when they were forced to work on stories they felt were dubious. As one former staffer described it, “They were paying me $35,000 a year to watch Fox all the time and to do rotating shifts where I’d have to change from a day shift to a night shift every two weeks. It was just a miserable job...”" "When it came to the organization’s research standards, most former staffers we talked to agreed that they were lowered when it came to Clinton-related content. One former staffer told us that, compared to “the amount of evidence we would have to collect to go after another story,” Clinton pieces had a “much lower bar. It literally just had to involve Hillary Clinton and that was it.” Another said that they often weren’t allowed to publish Clinton-related pieces “until they had been read by someone in leadership...”" "Then there was James Carville’s guest column for the site. In his inaugural post, the longtime Clinton ally stated his intention was to use the space to defend the Clintons: “That’s what happens when you have one standard for the Clintons, and a different one for everybody else, which is why I’ll be writing regularly in this space.” (Bradley Beychok, who was president of Media Matters from 2013 until early December, and who was thought responsible for enforcing the site’s pro-Clinton bent, is close to Carville)'" The New Republic was generally positive about Media Matters: "With the proliferation of conservative misinformation and the rise in popularity of far-right websites like Breitbart, there is a need for organizations like Media Matters now more than ever," but was scathing about their slant toward Hillary Clinton in the last Presidential campaign. Quoting The New Republic article again: "' Media Matters derives its credibility from its objectivity—its posts are dry, often consisting almost entirely of transcripts that aim to show how conservative media is misleading the public. Media Matters is also classified as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit group in the tax code, which means that it cannot explicitly advocate for a political candidate. The organization is careful not to step over that line, always framing pieces with a media angle—for example, “New York Times’s Maureen Dowd Writes Yet Another Anti-Clinton Column.” But with Carville’s column, that veneer of objectivity was tossed aside. Media Matters also had one standard for the Clintons, and a different one for everybody else.'" Media Matters for America was not merely a progressive organization devoted to debunking conservative misinformation during the 2016 Presidential campaign. They actually risked losing their tax-deductible 501(c)(3) organizational status to pick up the cudgel for Hillary Clinton in the last Presidential campaign, not once, but continually during the campaign, even lending Clinton loyalist James Carville a column for that purpose. We have that from The New Republic, which generally sides with Media Matters for America, but has been severely critical of their coverage of Hillary Clinton and her critics during the 2016 Presidential campaign.

I propose we list Media Matters for America as a potentially unreliable source, at least when they reported on Hillary Clinton or her critics during the 2016 US Presidential Campaign. loupgarous (talk) 00:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

National bias re ‘intervention’
I opened a discussion on this topic at Identifying reliable sources and invite your comments there as the issue is germane to both articles. Humanengr (talk) 01:57, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

CSICOP?
Why is Committee for Skeptical Inquiry listed as being conspiracist? I don't see anything in the article or talk page that would seem to justify that. People who advocate for crystal healing and clairvoyance don't like them, but that hardly seems like a negative. Matt Deres (talk) 15:53, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * It looks like it was added by someone trying to argue that sources promoting conspiracy theories should be considered more reliable...I've gone ahead and removed it. Sunrise (talk) 17:20, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for spotting. — Paleo  Neonate  – 20:44, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

InfoWars
Can we still cite InfoWars, for example, when Alex Jones says something that we wanna quote for whatever reason, can we still use infowars as a source for the quote? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.237.99.30 (talk) 01:20, 5 October 2018‎ (UTC)
 * Yes. As per WP:SELFSOURCE Alex Jones is a reliable source for himself for non self serving claims. So he is a source for what he has said. It is better to use a secondary source though. El komodos drago (talk to me) 11:33, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Prabook
'a copyright-infringing website which plagiarises various sources' reads like a serious accusation which demands at least a court decision to be justified.

Prabook states that it is built upon open information sources (which Wikipedia is) and users contribution, and until proven false, calling it a plagiarising colpyright-infringing website is a libelious statement that goes against both Wikipedia principles and the law.

Given that Wikipedia is built upon the same principles, does Nemo bis want to say that it is also a copyright-infringing website which plagiarises various sources?

Furthermore Prabook has a huge amount of information that is not presented on Wikipedia, which is obvious just by googling Prabook or using its internal search, so it cannot be considered as a Wikipedia mirror. A very brief list of Prabook content lacking on Wikipedia can be found on Wikipedia itself:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProjekt_Gambia/Prabook — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brigh7 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Add CNN as a potentially unreliable source
As said in the article, mainstream media do make mistakes. However, CNN in particular did so many mistakes over the past couple of years that it could be argued that their content is more mistake than reliable source, and should not be trusted by default. An example of the latest mistake is this tweet and article, which can be even considered a hit piece to Elon Musk: https://twitter.com/cnn/status/1250647869352181760. Several days after multiple hospitals posted public pictures on Twitter thanking Tesla, CNN published this article claiming Tesla didn't deliver, prompting Elon Musk himself to reply with "What I find most surprising is that CNN still exists", and then proceeding to reply with proof. There have been a significant number of mistakes in the past, which I think are enough to mark CNN's reputation as "potentially unreliable". Kbruen (talk) 15:59, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This was not a "hit piece". It was CNN reporting what the governor said. What's wrong with that? Further, it appears the governor was correct, as per this follow-up. O3000 (talk) 16:18, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Differentiating purpose of this essay versus the list of perennial sources?
Hi there, ! I came across your user page and found this essay. I've used this list of reliable sources as a gut check for the past year now when I'm considering a source. Out of curiosity (as a less experienced editor), how would you hope I might use this essay versus that list? Is it possible they could be merged?

All the best, Shrinkydinks (talk) 19:35, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Shrinkydinks, this essay dates from 2010 whereas the perennial sources list was begun in 2018. Although the essay and list do overlap the list is based on discussions at RS/N and formal RfCs and has become a go-to reference for particular sources that are often cited and discussed. It is an "explanatory supplement", whereas the essay is more informal and was intended as a general guide to assessing particular types of sources, giving some examples without aiming to catalogue them. I believe they are complementary, as the essay describes some common pitfalls and hopefully primes editors to assess unfamiliar, non-perennial sources. Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:12, 8 June 2021 (UTC)