In updating this list, please be mindful that it should only summarize the content of past discussions, and should not include novel arguments not previously covered in a centralized forum. If you feel that this list inadequately summarizes the content of the linked discussions, please help to improve it, or start a discussion on the talk page, especially if your changes prove controversial. Repeatedly restarting discussions where a strong and recent consensus already exists, may be considered disruptive and a type of forum shopping. Also consider when consensus was formed, and that the outcomes of very recent discussions are unlikely to be quickly overturned. If circumstances have evolved since the most recent discussion, new evidence has emerged that was not available at the time, or there is a new line of argument not previously covered, consider starting a discussion or a request for comment (RfC) at the reliable sources noticeboard.īefore doing so, please thoroughly familiarize yourself with content of previous discussions, and particularly the reasoning why consensus was reached, and not simply the outcome itself. Mundane, uncontroversial claims can be supported by lightweight sources, while information related to biomedicine and living persons typically require the most weighty ones.Ĭonsensus can change. Be especially careful with sponsored content, because while it is usually unreliable as a source, it is designed to appear otherwise.Ĭonsider the type of content being referenced, alongside the reliability of the sources cited. Even considering content published by a single source, some may represent high-quality professional journalism, while other content may be merely opinion pieces, which mainly represent the personal views of the author, and depend on the author's personal reliability as a source. Conversely, some otherwise high-quality sources may not be reliable for highly technical subjects that fall well outside their normal areas of expertise, and even very high-quality sources may occasionally make errors, or retract pieces they have published in their entirety. ![]() For example, even extremely low-quality sources, such as social media, may sometimes be used as self-published sources for routine information about the subjects themselves. Sources which are generally unreliable may still be useful in some situations. This list indexes discussions that reflect community consensus, and is intended as a useful summary.Ĭontext matters tremendously when determining the reliability of sources, and their appropriate use on Wikipedia. The list is not an independent document it is derived from the conclusions of the referenced discussions and formal Wikipedia:Requests for comment (RfCs). When in doubt, defer to the linked discussions, which provide in-depth arguments on when it is appropriate to use a source. The Daily Mail joins a number of other news organisations on the list.Refer to the legend for definitions of the icons in the list, but note that the discussion summaries provide more specific guidance on sources than the icons in the "Status" column. Wikipedia editors’ note Other media editors are warned against used As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles.” “Consensus was determined that the Daily Mail (including its online version, .uk) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. They add that Daily Mail can be used as a source in extreme circumstances, or when it is unavoidable – saying there must be a “demonstrable need to use it instead of other sources.” Decision made by ‘consensus’ of contributorsĬontributors have been discussing the move for several weeks since the motion was first proposed by editor Hillbillyholiday in early January. ![]() While blanket bans on news organisations as prominent as the Mail are highly unusual, Wikipedia does offer editors a page of “ potentially unreliable sources“, an extensive list of “ satirical news websites” as well as a warning to “generally avoid British tabloids”.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |