Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources

0 views
    ↑ To top of page

    anybody noticed something about the green sources?

    [edit]

    as per title, has anybody noticed a large amount of the so called "reliable" sources (marked in green) have account (forced logins) and/or paywalls that are very difficult to bypass?

    a lot of them are also corporate too which doesnt help anything Metro8102 (talk) 09:35, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    It's much more difficult to make people pay for slop and falsehoods than accurate information. That the share of paywalled sources are more reliable seems entirely normal and does not surprise me at all. CapnZapp (talk) 11:43, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] looks to me you are defending paywalls Metro8102 (talk) 09:29, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] From a reliability standpoint there's nothing wrong with paywalls, Wikipedia only requires that the source is available to the public in some way. See WP:SOURCEACCESS and WP:PUBLISHED for details. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:33, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] "accessible" asks you to pay money and/or create an account to continue reading methods get increasingly difficult to bypass not exactly public is it? i aint paying money to read shit that this site regards as "reliable" such as nyt (ewww) or wapo (literally owned by jeff bezos) Metro8102 (talk) 08:37, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] this site is so america pilled for things that do not involve them Metro8102 (talk) 08:41, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Unfortunately the crisis in news media funding is increasingly leading to two separate paths, the first is to switch to being subscription based, the second is to become hyper-sensationalised to drive more readership. That hyper-sensationalism generally drives down the quality of reporting the news organisation produces. There are still some quality organisations holding out on ad revenue alone, but they are becoming increasingly sparse and will likely continue not dwindle. Obviously public service organisation have held against this trend, but they are in a certain light already subscription based. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:02, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] @Metro8102: Please note that the perennial sources list is not "a representative sample of all sources used on Wikipedia or all sources in existence", as explained in WP:RSPNOT. There are many more non-paywalled sources that meet the criteria in the reliable sources guideline but are not included in this list because they are too uncontroversial to be discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard. Wikipedia is not going to dismiss paywalled sources because "academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources on topics such as history, medicine, and science" (per WP:SOURCE), and they are frequently paywalled. Whether a source is paywalled is a business decision made by its publisher; the act of implementing a paywall reduces the source's reach, which makes it less likely to be cited on Wikipedia.
    If you wish to bypass the paywalls of The New York Times and The Washington Post, you can use a web archiving service (such as Wayback Machine or archive.today) or a circumvention tool such as Bypass Paywalls Clean. (There is no consensus on whether the latter is an appropriate recommendation.) — Newslinger talk 13:52, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Its pretty controlled if you look at political stances of the reliable sources as well. For example, Fox news (I am not defending them), follow the protocol and are probably equally as reliable/unreliable as sources like BBC. BBC had a major issue where they altered footage of Trump to make it look like he was saying something didn't regarding the Jan 6 issue. That's just a single major failure but they are still marked as reliable, Fox had a major issue as well, and that single issue was enough to classify it as an unreliable source here on Wiki. The stance on Wiki is very left/liberal leaning in general, hence also why Grokipedia was created. Funnaile (talk) 12:15, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Grokipedia and that political leaning isn't related to reliability (see WP:RSBIAS) has been discussed extensively, check the archives here and on WP:RSN. You'll find discussions on the BBC in the RSN archives as well. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:04, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Reliable sources do not depend if there is a WP:PAYWALL or not. A paywalled sources could be unreliable as well. Masem (t) 15:46, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] I don't think they was saying it makes them unreliable, just noticing an unfortunate pattern. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] People increasingly get their "news" from YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, Facebook, X, and other free, but lousy, social media sites, starving legitimate news sources. Compiling and reporting legitimate news is far more expensive than making up news. The legitimate sources are increasingly forced to charge fees. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:15, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] sorry for taking two weeks to reply propaganda outlets such as NYT and daily telegraph are considered reliable the former has a tendecy to believe in made up information they were forced to retract later, while the latter literally believes that epstein was a RUSSIAN agent (same thing that daily mail and the sun say btw) lets say it, wikipedia is good for stuff about media (tv and movies etc) but is such a joke when it comes to anything controversial you claim to be neutral. i already know what side you pick.

    Metro8102 (talk) 07:59, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Everybody makes mistakes but the reliable ones correct them faster. The ones that had to be forced to make retractions are assessed by the community as reliable. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:58, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Correct, Aaron Liu. I've already presented at a WikiCon about this issue of deprecation of some mainstream "corporate" media. (It's linked on my portfolio page.) There is some evidence that Epstein was in fact an agent of Russia, but I wouldn't say it's probable cause. I think that's besides the point. The question is this list, which I think is fair, albeit incomplete. It's written for an 8th grader, who are still taught incorrectly that electrons literally circle around the nucleus. We can't possibly know or address every single mistake made by a media outlet: we are not in charge of all media. Bearian (talk) 21:56, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Epstein was likely a Russian agent per RS. Andre🚐 18:31, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    CESNUR entry has been changed without RFC

    [edit]

    I notice that the WP:CESNUR entry has recently been updated from GUNREL to MREL, and the text in the "Summary" cell has also been changed. However I am unable to discover an edit history or how this was changed, when, and who did it. There was a discussion which has been archived and is linked in the WP:CESNUR entry as "2026". However, it is accompanied by a icon which means an RFC, however there wasn't an RFC as best I can tell, only a discussion, and with no closing statement. Sure, there was no consensus in that discussion, but there was no RFC (with closing) to formally ask the community whether the status of CESNUR should be changed. And yet it has been changed. How is that?   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 01:58, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    User NotBartEhrman was involved (a lot) in the discussion, which was fairly contentious. There was no resolution to the discussion, formal or informal. Though the 2026 discussion itself was 'no consensus', that shouldn't override the other 4 recorded discussions which led to GUNREL, and it certainly shouldn't have been decided by an involved editor. NotBartEhrman also changed the descriptive text from the harsh:

    CESNUR is an apologia site for new religious movements, and thus is inherently unreliable in its core area due to conflicts of interest. There is also consensus that its content is unreliable on its own merits. CESNUR has an online magazine, Bitter Winter, that is also considered generally unreliable.

    to the favorable:

    CESNUR is an academic network studying new religious movements which publishes a regular journal. It is well-respected within its specialized field, but editors expressed concern that CESNUR sometimes makes controversial claims and its articles are not consistently cited by other academic sources. CESNUR is linked to a non-peer-reviewed online magazine, Bitter Winter, that by most recent consensus was considered generally unreliable.

    I don't think an involved editor from a contentious discussion should be unilaterally making such decisions for WP:RSP. Per WP:INVOLVED, "In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved." I think changing an entry in RSP is "acting as administrator", and I dispute the new MREL and accompanying text.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 15:41, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    agreed. as uninvolved user, went ahead and reverted bold edit here [1]
    WP:ONUS is on change
    no opinion on designation at this point... an RFC may be in order though? User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 15:51, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] It's out of date now, please fix. CNC (talk) 16:04, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] k, [2], thanks for catching User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 16:13, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Close enough, thanks.[3] CNC (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Thank you, Bluethricecreamman. I'm not opposed to participating in an RFC if someone posts one.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 16:52, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] The RSP is like any other page, WP:BOLD is allowed, WP:BRD is advisable, WP:CONSENSUS and WP: Dispute resolution are applicable. The RSP is a log of prior discussions and their consensus, editing it is not an administrative action as anyone can do it.
    I am however surprised that any consensus came from that discussion, I was expecting that a RFC would be the result. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:42, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] I have no problem with logging the discussion as a link, but dispute that that particular single discussion would/should have changed the "status". In this case, someone should post a formal RFC because that singular recent discussion should not override the several prior discussions without some sort of consensus.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 16:52, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] This was why I was expecting a RFC, the past discussions had been so negative (including the Bitter Winter RFC) and the recent discussion was quite contentious. It's not a situation I would've expected a RSP update to come from. But anyone can edit this page, and anyone can revert that edit. The first step of consensus is meant to be by editing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:07, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] I wasn't aware that the discussion has to be an RFC, because WP:RSPIMPROVE specifically says "consider starting a discussion or a request for comment" -- as in, one or the other can be chosen, depending on what we feel is appropriate. I thought an RFC, which in my experience often devolves into a vote, would be inappropriate for the complex issues which we ended up discussing on RSN. After the discussion was concluded, I thought I had chosen wisely not to frame it as an RFC with a list of options. I am fine with requiring a further RFC to update the listing (and including a reevaluation of Bitter Winter with it), but I don't think I will initiate one or participate in it due to new time constraints. I think it would also be helpful to editors to update the description at WP:RSPIMPROVE to correctly reflect the discussion we have just had. NotBartEhrman (talk) 17:53, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] You can start a discussion or a RFC as RSPIMPROVE says. I don't think that's the issue here, rather your update to the RSP doesn't seem to reflect consensus based on all prior discussions. I was expecting a RFC as there seemed to be a desire to have a different consensus, a consensus that wasn't apparent in the recent discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:25, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Usually they don't need an RfC, but recent RfCs are considered stronger consensus than newer discussions due to the sheer volume of participants consulted. (FWIW this is a general convention across the entire wiki but you're right that we shouldn't expect the unfamiliar to know this.) I'm not sure if there's space to add this information in the section you linked but I'll see what I can do at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Instructions. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] For this discussion to override the RfC it'd need a formal close, if one is possible then WP:CR might be able to help. Given RSN is a centralised venue, there is no need for an RfC tag in order to gain new consensus, but there is a need for a formal close (one that can be formally challenged etc). Otherwise it just get's messy as anyone can interpret the discussion differently. CNC (talk) 19:04, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] If nobody disagrees with the proposed RSP summary of the discussion, I don't think we need a formal close. I think the problem is more #c-ActivelyDisinterested-20260123170700-Grorp-20260123165200 and thus we need to pose the question to a wider audience. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:16, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] It doesnt have to be at all. But if folks object to bold change and discussion isnt going anywhere, rfc is best way to precede. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 20:10, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] There's no real point to doing an RfC because this is a very niche topic and so I suspect that the same 5 people (me included) will continue arguing past each other for the full length of the RfC and we will get nowhere, perhaps a no consensus close, because most other editors are not familiar with the academia in this rather niche and complicated field, no matter what side of this they fall on in this specific debate. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:16, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] I think that CESNUR is a good source for positive knowledge, but not for anything that can be construed as advocacy. We just have to distinguish between their knowledge and their desires. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:40, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Sure, fine by me, but I doubt we could find affirmative consensus at an RfC for anything, including that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:44, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Middle East Eye

    [edit]

    This source has been discussed multiple times at RSN though with no RfC. I think it would be helpful to add to RSP. I've never added anything to RSP before so have some trepidation, especially having been an involved editor in some of the RSN discussions. I'm summarising the RSN discussions and hoping someone else might add to RSP. (Subsequently banned editors participated in some of these discussions but I don't know if that should be factored in.)

    • October 2015: Two editors participated, one arguing unreliable, one arguing reliable.
    • July 2018: Four editors, one arguing unreliable, three arguing weakly reliable
    • October 2018: Four editors participated, one arguing unreliable (who had made the same argument in previous discussion), two arguing reliable (one who had made same argument in 2015), one arguing use with care. (Additional considerations supported: avoid for exceptional claims, avoid use in relation to Qatar or Muslim Brotherhood.)
    • January 2021: Around six editors participated, two arguing unreliable, around four arguing for use with caution. (Additional considerations supported: biased source, avoid use in relation to Qatar or Muslim Brotherhood, attribute)
    • January 2021: basically same discussion as previous that stopped because it duplicated same question, but one additional editor weighed in supporting use being DUE without comment on reliability.
    • January 2024: just couple of mentions within discussion of range of sources, with one editor saying it's a controversial source.
    • May 2024: Brief mentions in discussion of another source, three editors commenting that it's opaque about funding.
    • October 2025: This was a discussion of whether another source is reliable for talking about this source. (Saudi-backed) Arab News made allegations that (Qatar-owned) MEE disseminates fake news, but editors agreed that Arab News criticisms can't be repeated in wikivoice.

    Conclusion: insufficient report for GUNREL to colour-code it red, but no consensus for reliability and enough caution expressed to colour-code as yellow, with potential additional considerations as above. Something like: Some editors have concerns about funding from and alignment with Qatari government. There is broad consensus that it should not be used for topics falling under the interest of that government or for exceptional claims, and care should be taken to attribute opinions. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:44, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Or is this not enough discussion, e.g. no RfCs? BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:14, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Add behindthename.com

    [edit]

    The RFC on behindthename.com was closed as "generally unreliable in most cases". I would add the following description to its entry:

    Behindthename.com is a self-published source and contains user-generated content. It has received limited use by other sources as a reference. When entries on the website cite secondary sources, cite those sources instead.

    ―Howard • 🌽33 00:50, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    (Feel free to modify the description if necessary.) ―Howard • 🌽33 00:51, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Cord Cutter News and TheDesk

    [edit]

    Could we get these 2 added to the template on sources as they seem to have had discussions on there already? OWaunTon (talk) 12:28, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    This article is sourced from Wikipedia. Content is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.