Wikipedia:Undiscussed sources/Provisional sources

There are many sources that should not be used in Wikipedia articles, but that have not yet been discussed formally at venues such as WP:RS/N. This page is designed as a precursor to consensus, but not in a way that acts as a unilateral bypassing of said consensus. Sources listed on this page are known to be problematic, and will be categorised as undiscussed and being in a provisional category prior to an established consensus. Once a consensus is formed (optional but preferred), the source is removed from this page and added to either WP:RS/PS, WP:NPPSG or one of the many WikiProject sources lists that are run by consensus.

Sources that are known to be problematic can be added to User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/CiteHighlighter/AllSourcesExceptNPPSG, which the plugin CiteHighlighter is updated to pull from every so often. For more information it is recommended to contact the author @Novem Linguae. Whilst this list can be updated by any editor, care should be taken to ensure any website being listed is actually problematic. This also applies to this page.

This page is not official and only sources that have not yet been discussed on Wikipedia are to be listed here. Advice on whether a specific source is reliable should also be gathered at WP:RS/N rather than what is on this page alone.

Disclaimer

Entries on this page do not determine reliability of any source. Discussions with consensus must take place before that can happen. This is what WP:RS/PS and WP:NPPSG are for. US/PS is a precursor to those venues.

BEFORE ADDING A SOURCE TO THIS PAGE, PLEASE CHECK TO SEE IF IT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED AT THE RELIABLE SOURCES NOTICEBOARD FIRST:

IF A SOURCE HAS ALREADY BEEN DISCUSSED ANYWHERE ON WIKIPEDIA, DO NOT ADD IT TO THIS PAGE.

Guidelines for use

The following guidelines are in place to make sure this page is used correctly:

• Do not add sources under any category of this page that has had prior discussion at WP:RS/N or any talk page. This also extends to any part of Wikipedia where a discussion is able to take place. Sources that have been discussed should be listed in the proper venus, for example WP:NPPSG.
• When linking to this page, make it clear that the source being referred to has not been the subject of consensus on Wikipedia yet. This is important, as US/PS acts as a precursor to pages where consensus has been established for a specific source, such as at WP:RS/N.
• Any editor may add a source based on their own observation. Because of this, it is important to remember that even though a source is categorised here in a specific way, it could end up having a different consensus form at a later time.
• If you feel another category should be added to this page, please make sure the category name is positioned as a question. Categories on this page act in a provisional manner only.
• Once a source has been discussed at a venue such as WP:RS/N or anywhere else a discussion is able to take place on Wikipedia, that source must be removed from this list and be listed at WP:RS/PS, WP:NPPSG or a WikiProject sources list.
• Sources listed at WP:RS/PS or WP:NPPSG as "no consensus" are given that designation because a discussion has taken place that ended with no consensus. This page is different from this in that sources here have not had any discussion anywhere on Wikipedia whatsoever.

Preference of type

• Similarly to how WP:NPPSG operates regarding already established consensus. Sources added to this page should be WP:SECONDARY sources. If a source is WP:PRIMARY then it should be labelled as such.

Disagreements over categorisation

• Removing or reverting any list additions by other editors has little bearing on this page due to it only providing a non-official provisional categorisation. In the event an editor disagrees with the category of a specific source, the correct procedure is to start a discussion at WP:RS/N. At that point, the source would be disqualified from this page under the guidelines and would become eligible for listing at WP:NPPSG or one of the other lists that operate by discussion and consensus.

Layout of lists

There are two ways sources can be listed on this page. Either in grid form or as a text list. Due to the technical limitations that are being encountered by WP:RS/PS, the latter is preferred.

Grid

Source	Summary	Use
Name of source	Summarise the source based on your personal observation.	1
Name of source	Summarise the source based on your personal observation.	1

Text

• Name of source - Summarise the source based on your personal observation. 1  

Provisional categories

Potentially reliable

Sources listed here have been identified as being potentially reliable. These outlets, websites and publications have made clear that they have an editorial process and are not user-generated.

News organisations

• Kent Online Emphasises maintaining high editorial standards. Generally reliable articles about the county of Kent. Is probably okay to use as a local source. 1  
• KentLive - Emphasises high editoral standards as its core business philosophy. [1] Contains generally reliable information relating to the county of Kent in its published articles and is probably okay to use as a local source. 1  

Potentially unreliable

Sources listed here have been identified as being potentially unreliable. Caution should be applied when using these sources in Wikipedia articles. These websites and publications have not disclosed an official editorial process. Websites could be subject to user-generated content, without formal verification of published information. WP:BLOGS would also fall under this umbrella.

Questionable reliability

Websites

• The Odyssey Online - This site says anybody can create the content that matters to them. This potentially means it is an WP:SPS. Caution should be exercised when using this website as a source on Wikipedia, due to possible questionable reliability. 1  

Probably best not to use

Possible LLM content farm

Websites and outlets listed here have been identified as possibly publishing articles and content generated by an LLM. Exercising caution is recommended when using sources that are listed here due to the potential of hallucinated information.

• UK News Pulse - Website has been identified as having articles entirely generated by an LLM, for example this one. It is probably best to avoid this website, due to it possibly being an LLM content farm. 1  

Note from author

My reason for setting up this page stems from the fact that most links, as processed by @Novem Linguae's plugin CiteHighlighter and Meta:Cite Unseen, are "unknown". Most of the mainstream websites such as The New York Times and The Independent are thankfully known, and are highlighted as reliable or not by these plugins. My objective with this page is to make more of these sources that are unknown on Wikipedia, have a place where they can at least be made known, before a consensus takes place.

When I tried to gather a consensus on the website DeviantArt, I was directed to WP:RSPNOT. One of the bullet points stood out to me, specifically the seventh one which states the following, RS/PS is not 'a list of sources that have never been discussed, or whose reliability should be obvious to most editors'. This sets a pretty dangerous precedent in that a source that is unknown to Wikipedia could slip through the net, when in actuality it is completely unreliable and just hasn't been discussed on the project before. I really want this to change.

The second pillar of Wikipedia states that 'All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy with citations based on reliable sources.' As editors we have a duty to make it known if a source is clearly not reliable, discussed or not. That is what I present with this page. Thank you. 11WB (talk)