This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Reliability This page is part of WikiProject Reliability, a collaborative effort to improve the reliability of Wikipedia articles. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ReliabilityWikipedia:WikiProject ReliabilityTemplate:WikiProject ReliabilityReliability articles Wikipedia Help A‑class High‑importance This page is within the scope of the Wikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the Help Menu or Help Directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.Wikipedia HelpWikipedia:Help ProjectTemplate:Wikipedia Help ProjectHelp articles A This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale. High This page has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

WP:RSP currently says that "There is no consensus on the reliability of Media Matters for America. As a biased or opinionated source, their statements should be attributed." I agree with the second sentence, but not the first. The last RfC on this matter showed most !votes as "generally reliable" and "additional considerations apply", but I don't see anyone saying its "unreliable". But "no consensus" sounds ambiguous and could mean "some editors think it is reliable, while other editors think its unreliable". VR _talk 08:19, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. The wording should be changed to:

There is consensus that Media Matters for America is generally reliable. As a biased or opinionated source, their statements should be attributed.

The last RfC should be linked. -- Valjean (talk) 21:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The last RfC explicitly reaffirmed the "No consensus" status. I don't think we should second-guess the closer here. Alaexis_¿question? 21:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not quite what the closer said (they said "the current reliability status of Media Matters for America is generally reaffirmed"). But its clear even from the closer's statement that the two predominant choices were "reliable" and "uncertain", not "reliable" and "unreliable".VR _talk 22:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The "current reliability status" before the December 2019 RfC was "No consensus." The closer wrote that it was reaffirmed. Alaexis_¿question? 22:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe what they meant by "current reliability status" was the color, and I agree that the color was reaffirmed by the RfC. Your interpretation of the closer's first sentence appears to contradict the closer's second sentence. If the closer truly meant that consensus is split between reliable and unreliable (I don't think they meant that), then that RfC should be re-closed, as I don't see a single !vote that considered MMfA unreliable during the RfC.VR _talk 22:17, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, the closer didn't mean that consensus was split between reliable and unreliable. The closer meant that consensus was split between "reliable" and "uncertain" but "a lot of the arguments in general default to "uncertain."" By "uncertain," I am quite confident that was simply the closer's shorthand for a marginally reliable source, which is defined as a No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply: The source is marginally reliable (i.e. neither generally reliable nor generally unreliable), and may be usable depending on context. Editors may not have been able to agree on whether the source is appropriate, or may have agreed that it is only reliable in certain circumstances. It may be necessary to evaluate each use of the source on a case-by-case basis while accounting for specific factors unique to the source in question. This makes sense since a great deal of editors !voted "additional considerations apply." Even many of the editors who !voted generally reliable stated that the source should be used on a "case-by-case basis" or is "context dependent." These types of qualifiers are more in line with a marginal source than a generally reliable source, and the closer accurately reflected this in their closing. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. But I feel this is not accurately reflected in the simplistic sentence "There is no consensus on the reliability of Media Matters for America" and it should be worded differently.VR _talk 23:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. We can write something to the degree of: There is consensus that Media Matters is marginally reliable and that its articles should be evaluated for reliability on a case-by-case basis. As a partisan advocacy group, their statements should be be attributed. But I'm open to other suggestions. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 01:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds pretty good. -- Valjean (talk) 02:31, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think its an improvement over the current wording, so I'd support replacing it.VR _talk 02:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Last RFC was almost exactly two years ago. If there's any uncertainty, we could always just hold another RFC now. --Aquillion (talk) 02:25, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Why are we splitting hairs here what the closer may have meant two years ago when it's possible to hold a new RfC at the RSN. Alaexis_¿question? 11:56, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• As the proposal by Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d was supported by Valjean and myself and opposed by none, I updated the text.VR _talk 16:31, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's an improvement. Consensus has changed for the better. -- Valjean (talk) 17:07, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Far too partisan for my liking, I oppose the proposal. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 20:57, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The question was never what any of us think about MMfA (also please read WP:IDONTLIKEIT) but how to best interpret consensus.VR _talk 01:39, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  What consensus? The consensus of whatever random half-dozen editors happen to be on this page over a very short but unspecified period of time? Wikipedia shouldn't simply be replicating the failed bipolarized US media model, it should be attempting to rise above it. What possible justification is there for using describing clearly politically partisan sources as RS when there are so much better on offer? EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 03:43, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, minor Wikipedia editors have no right to decide what is the right consensus or not. That phrase "no consensus" and "there is a consensus" can and is so biased. There is a consensus for everything okay people? Things change too. Anyway, there should at least be much more sources to other outside decent publishers/sites. Wikipedia themselves admitted they aren't a reliable source, especially for citations elsewhere in itself. Good day; case closed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6011:9600:52C0:C968:6050:DDB:EF6F (talk) 02:58, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with the proposed rewrite but better to strike out and that its articles should be evaluated for reliability on a case-by-case basis. We wikilink to marginally reliable. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:44, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"We wikilink to marginally reliable." - Ever cross your mind to ask yourself "Why?" EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 07:42, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the latest RfC about Jacobin, I am not sure that "[e]ditors achieved a strong consensus that Jacobin is no better than marginally reliable. [emphasis mine; strong consensus and successive close wording is bolded in original], and in general did not seem to account for Option 1 and/or Option 1/2 comments when stating that "there is strong consensus that Jacobin is no better than marginally reliable" — e.g. it appears to be there was no clear or strong consensus on whether it was 1 or 2, with a minority supporting 3. The rest of the closure and yellow rating, however, was fine; the current (RSP entry) also appears to be too wordy and could be improved. Davide King (talk) 08:21, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Hemiauchenia and Tayi Arajakate, since they worked on entries, but anyone's thought would be helpful — is it just me? Davide King (talk) 08:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Davide King, I would rather not touch that entry since I had made a comment in the discussion itself but yeah, looking at the discussion, I think you might be correct that the entry does not reflect it. The wording in the entry is directly copied from the close summary though, so a close review at WP:AN and a reclose/amendment would be needed if you want to modify it. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 01:33, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was pinged on my talk: the close is meant to convey that there is a strong consensus that it is not better than Option 2 (I.E. the arguments against it being an Option 1 news publisher were quite strong and were more than enough to achieve a clear consensus against that designation) and that there are particular additional considerations to apply to Jacobin (I.E. in-text attribution and some issues expressed regarding contentious BLP claims). If people would like to challenge a 3-month old RfC close on AN, I technically cannot stop you but also I think the fact that none of the many RfC participants did so sooner indicates that the closure was proper. — Mhawk10 (talk) 17:27, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I see no reason to change it. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:07, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that makes sense, going by headcount at least, there were 19 participants whose position can be described as endorsing "not better than Option 2" (13 for Option 2 and 6 for Option 3) and 18 participants whose position can be described as endorsing "not worse than Option 2" (13 for Option 1 and 5 for Option 1/2). There were policy based arguments on both ends. The close is quite verbose so it's possible no one paid attention to its specifics, at least that's the case with me. There is also only one person among the 37 who said anything about BLPs (i.e, Crossroads). Tayi Arajakate _Talk 10:25, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. So many words and little makes sense. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:22, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[T]he arguments against it being an Option 1 news publisher were quite strong and were more than enough to achieve a clear consensus against that designation, that looks more like your personal opinion or view that an admin may not agree with, if they closed it themselves; as noted by Tayi Arajakate, both sides gave strong arguments (in particular Aquillion, and the fact, as was noted by Tayi Arajakate, that There is still a lack of examples of any factual inaccuracies in its coverage. This was pointed out in the last two discussions as well. It is as if it is deemed too biased to be reliable, even though no strong evidence has been presented to support this fact, and the mere fact it is more opinion rather than straight news already means we cannot always use it, as noted by The Four Deuces — it does not mean it is not reliable or cannot be reliable, or that it is unreliable on facts) and it is very close, much closer than your own closure implied (I also noticed only now that Tayi Arajakate is correct that it was only a single user out of the 37th who mentioned BLPs, so the closure gave way too much weight to one side than was warranted, and was closer than it is assumed), which is why I asked that an admin review it and re-close it with a better summary and entry here. I think an admin close review is warranted. Davide King (talk) 19:09, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As for challeng[ing] a 3-month old RfC close on AN, ... I think the fact that none of the many RfC participants did so sooner indicates that the closure was proper. I missed it (or else I would have participated too) and I saw it only those days, and I thought that it was worth a review. I do not think that other users ignoring it means they are fine with it (they are free to comment here or someone other than me may ping them if they disagree), and the mere fact it was closed by a non-admin, and at least two other users have agreed with my concerns and about verbosity, of which I know what I am talking about since I am guilty of this and I try to improve, while two users who disagree are the closure themselves and a user who voted for Option 3 — I see no reason not to look further and get a better summary of consensus, or lack thereof.

Davide King (talk) 19:21, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also noticed only now that Tayi Arajakate is correct that it was only a single user out of the 37th who mentioned BLPs - exactly. What a mess. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:13, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jlevi, Jr8825, and WMrapids (who gave a better summary entry that takes in consideration both sides) gave very good policy-based, summaries, and well-addressed counter-arguments — again, policy-wise and even numerically, this was much closer than was assumed ... Davide King (talk) 10:11, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the closer has not responded further to these concerns and the close review at AN was archived with no endorsements, I'm going to go ahead and remove it from the list. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 10:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted that removal. If you're going to open up a close challenge on AN, please follow the giant notice on top of the page and actually leave me a talk page message when opening a discussion. — Mhawk10 (talk) 16:14, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't open the close review and the notice is for discussions on editors not reviews. Unlike reports on conduct, it isn't a requirement to specifically notify closers of a review on their talk page, though they usually are aware. See for instance, the most recent close review at AN or for the matter, most other reviews in the archives where the closers were not specifically notified and it did not cause any issue.

Similarly, you were notified on your talk page about this discussion where the recommendation was a close review, you then went on to comment about the close review and you were active at AN when the close review was open. It seems like you were aware as well. Instead of reaching for technicalities, perhaps you could try responding to the actual concerns being brought up. The more I look at it, the more it looks like a supervote and the lack of response does not help. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 18:43, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note, I've unarchived the discussion at WP:AN seeking wider community input. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § Close review of the latest RfC about Jacobin's reliability. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 16:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the AN discussion has been running for three weeks and there's a strong consensus for a reclose. Since the Jacobin entry in the RSP list is based solely on that RfC, I've yanked it: if it's premised on a faulty close, then it's a faulty entry. Einsof (talk) 15:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Einsof and Tayi Arajakate, that discussion has been archived. The RfC has not been revised or overturned yet, and in case some admin want to do that or is already working to do it, that is the link. Davide King (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sdkb closed the AN discussion as "reclose", and I've reclosed the original discussion accordingly: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_351#Rfc:_Jacobin_(magazine). – Joe (talk) 14:36, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask someone to update the RSP entry accordingly (I participated in that discussion, so I'd probably not do that myself). The deleted entry looked this way. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've just done it. – Joe (talk) 08:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I raised this issue at the ongoing RFC about deprecated sources here, but I just want to note the definition of deprecated provided on this page is different than the definition given on the information page Wikipedia:Deprecated sources. Calidum 17:43, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All most like this whole "deprecation" thing has been poorly thought out and interpreted differently by different people. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:12, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:09, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a consensus on the reliability of this media outlet ^[1]? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infty1000 0110 (talk • contribs) 10:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please put new talk page messages at the bottom of talk pages and sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~) — See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 10:49, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, will do that from now on. Thanks for the link on how to use talk pages Infty1000 0110 (talk) 13:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking to get https://www.invisibleoranges.com/ listed as a Reliable source.

can aynone help? H8eternal (talk) 08:41, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@H8eternal: Per the box at the top, you should discuss sources on the reliable sources noticeboard. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:47, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just because an account on youtube is affiliated with a company that wikipedia considers reliable does not mean that the youtube account should be. It makes no sense to put a blanket ban on any youtube video unless it happens to be affiliated with some news outlet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A448:411:1:A8AD:45C:7808:D163 (talk) 15:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The reliability of a source is attached to the people who created the source, not the site that hosts it. --Jayron32 15:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No source is completely reliable, context matters. YT is like the rest of the internet a platform, not a source. CNN's YT-channel has the RS-ness of CNN. Blogger X's YT-channel has the RS-ness of blogger X. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not applicable. I think a video is just difficult for RS as a matter of utility and access so it would be reasonable to say *any* video from *any* source is generally less desirable than a print support and prefer one use WP:BESTSOURCES of printed material. The Oxford book publication simply is a better source and more useable than a BBC one programme. So - not a RSP or ban at all. (I do not think there are any situations where a video is more useful, but perhaps someone can give an example?) Also I think the reputation of a source does not fully convey. The credibility of an author in a different media may convey some personal credibility, but they lose the RS qualifications they have in print media such as expertise, editorial oversight mechanics, peer review, and deep research just cannot be applied. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We should not discount video sources as substandard simply because the format is less accessible. We do require that the video source be created and verified by a reputable publisher (eg BBC's own videos), obviously, and most YouTube videos fail this. And in cases where a print/web article serves the same purpose as a video we should probably prefer that. But videos like documentaries which do not get printed versions are extremely useful reference works once you have chased down to validate the reliability of the creator. --Masem (t) 13:17, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Could a patroller or experienced user update the Who's Who (UK) entry to reflect this ongoing RfC? I got spooked by the reference number for the discussion I was supposed to add. Thanks in advance. Pilaz (talk) 04:42, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I beat my deepest fears and made it, y'all. I am a Wikipedia god. Cheers, Pilaz (talk) 21:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:01, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If citing Wikipedia as a source is disallowed,why is it categorized as "generally unreliable" instead of "deprecated" or "blacklisted"?

This seems to imply you can use Wikipedia as a source, but that's not the case. 176.119.195.50 (talk) 12:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecation is reserved for sources that publish known and deliberate falsehoods, as opposed to sources with weak editorial controls. Wikipedia fits under the "generally unreliable" category because it tries to get it right, but it does not have quality control mechanisms in place like a truly reliable source does. --Jayron32 14:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems different people have different ideas of what deprecation means. I think this is the first time I've seen someone say it's reserved for "known and deliberate falsehoods". —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a common conception for which sources are deprecated. Though if we go by WP:DEPS there is per se no difference between unreliable and deprecated sources (neither should be used per WP:QS) other than that a prohibition is enforced for the latter because there are a small number of editors who strongly insist on using a certain source. Generally the kind of sources for which the insistence exists and the kind of sources that publish known and deliberate falsehoods, more or less overlap so both the ideas for deprecation have largely co-existed. For example regarding Wikipedia, the insistence just doesn't exist, other than some new contributors no one cites it and the new contributors themselves tend to listen when they are told not to use it. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:07, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added a new discussion of Encyclopaedia Iranica, a 2021 one with two significant contributors and the article name stated. Please feel free to correct my edits if it is not a significant discussion. Thanks- VickKiang (talk) 23:17, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wikipedia:ELONMUSK and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 16#Wikipedia:ELONMUSK until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Vitaium (talk) 13:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]