To discuss the reliability of a source, please start or join a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard (WP:RSN). Discussions on the noticeboard will be added to this list. This talk page is for discussing the maintenance of the list itself, and arguments posted here will not be taken into consideration.
Before opening an RSN discussion, editors are advised to read the reasons past discussions have resulted in the source's current status. Past discussions on a source are listed in the third column of each source's entry.
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
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
Layne Radlauer (5 September 2020). "Wikipedia Isn't Censoring Conservative Journalists". Misbar. However, many left-wing websites are also listed as unreliable sources on Wikipedia, while some right-wing sources are reliable.
"Pro-Kremlin Disinformation Outlets Referenced By Hundreds Of Wikipedia Articles". EUvsDisinfo. 19 April 2022. A "non-exhaustive list of sources whose reliability and use on Wikipedia are frequently discussed" is maintained on yet another page. Note that both Sputnik and RT are explicitly listed as unreliable sources, but there is no reference, for example, to SNA, the rebranded German version of Sputnik. Southfront[.]org and news-front[.]info are listed as "state-sponsored fake news sites", but they are missing from the main list on the page.
So the Allsides rating says "while the high-confidence ratings are generally reliable as they are reviewed carefully by experts" but the close says "The people who are in support of Option 2 point out that the confidence ratings in Allsides are highly variable—while the high-confidence ratings are generally reliable as they are reviewed carefully by experts, whereas the low-confidence ratings tend to be based more on surveys." which seems to be pulling the quote out of context... For context the arguments made by those supporting option 2 were "For the Allsides ratings that are supported by other RS or appear to have undergone a good analysis they are generally reliable, but for the one's that appear to have received little attention and care, they should not be used." "Therefore, to me this is not generally reliable even for the high confidence ratings and should be determined situationally." and "while high confidence ratings are generally usable with attribution, though in some articles, editors may not consider them valuable enough to include." (and thats pretty much it... No-one actually makes that argument per-say) so its a very loose summary which clearly isn't meant to be taken literally, but we've cut and pasted it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:34, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest raising the question at RSN. Given the summaries here are meant to be summaries of RSN discussions and given they are often treated as near policy it seems like questions regarding the RSP summaries should be reviewed there rather than here. I do think you raise a valid question BTW, I just think the correct venue should be RSN. Springee (talk) 16:23, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The main point is that it isn't a summary... Its a quote used in a slightly different context (which changes the meaning in a substantial way) without quotation marks. A summary would say something else. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:33, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The overall framing is also wrong, it says "In a 2022 RfC, editors found no consensus on the reliability of AllSides as a whole." but the result was not no consensus it was a standard "Option 2: Additional considerations apply" so I guess I'm mostly interested in how the summary on this list got to its current state. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:37, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Probably someone did their best, and, like any other page, other editors are asked to do their best to improve it.
That noticeboard isn't for workshopping wordings at RS/PS... This talk page is. It can't be brought to RSN unless there is some new dispute over its reliability... Which I guess could work. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:46, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this is the place to workshop the wording unless we want to ask RSN to clarify the close.But in this case I think you would need to ask to clarify/overturn the close to change that part. The summary is correctly summarizing what the close said, the close is what's allegedly quoting the participants out of context here, and from a quick skim the close seems reasonable as there is a sizable amount of !votes ins upport of high-confidence=generally reliable. I don't see how high confidence ratings are generally usable with attribution, though in some articles, editors may not consider them valuable enough to include contradicts the close; it's generally reliable after all. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:03, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, the summary is quoting the close out of context. What the close says doesn't change that point, we have a quote pretending to be a summary and it can't be both. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:50, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if I understand. I'm referring to the "Summary" column of the RSP table as the summary and the statement at the top of the closed RfC as the close. I don't see how the summary misrepresents the close or what's wrong with having an unlabeled quote in the summary. At most just do a dummy edit linking the discussion for attribution. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:55, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there's no legal issue, what's wrong with that? The only other way to cover the information in this clause is close paraphrasing which is not better.
How does that have to do with whether the summary matches consensus?
I agree with Horse Eye's Back that the RSP summary needs revisiting. Note that none of Allsides ratings are currently being used in English Wikipedia. As someone who regularly checks how Allsides is used in articles and removes any that aren't high-confidence, I've only come across a few over the years that actually meet the high-confidence criteria. They are removed by others as UNDUE, very quickly from the lede. --Hipal (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. I think it's fair to add the note about Due weight to the entry like what we have in many other entries. How about this? I've shuffled the text around for clarity, added the note on due weight, and also threw in a note on what AllSides usually does.
AllSides is an American company that estimates the bias of sources. In the 2022 RfC, editors found that reliability varies among its articles and should be determined on a case-by-case basis. Many believe that while the high-confidence ratings are generally reliable as they are reviewed carefully by experts, others depend on blind user surveys they consider opinionated and less reliable, though the inclusion of even reliable statements should be evaluated with WP:Due weight. A significant amount of users disagreed and argued that AllSides's methodology, which is partly based on the opinions of users, makes it unsuitable for Wikipedia. A significant minority of users noted that AllSides has been referenced in reliable sources as an accurate source for media bias ratings..
The option 2 !side the close found favor with. I don't think WT:RSP is the appropriate venue to dispute that close, maybe AN or RSN would be good for that. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:35, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't what those who supported option 2 argued for the most part... So who specifically believes that? I see maybe a single editor who could be characterized that way and "many" is your choice of words not the closers so you should be able to support it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:48, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Other than "Many", the wording is lifted from the close:
The people who are in support of Option 2 point out that the confidence ratings in Allsides are highly variable—while the high-confidence ratings are generally reliable as they are reviewed carefully by experts, whereas the low-confidence ratings tend to be based more on surveys.
To me, this seems like a reasonable reading of the Option 2 argument, which to directly address your question is what Compassio argued and whom all but one option 2 !voter cited. Here's how the close characterized this position, instead of my "many":
the arguments for Option 2 were slightly stronger than the arguments for Option 3, as they were more nuanced and allowed for significant variability. The Option 3 arguments were less nuanced. Therefore, I would close this discussion as a slight consensus towards Option 2.
On a re!count I see why you might object to calling this side "many". I'm fine with replacing "many" If you strongly disagree with it. Would replacing this word with "A slight consensus" as quoted from the close be amenable to you? Aaron Liu (talk) 19:20, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then we're back to the quoting not summarizing issue. Remember if its a quote it isn't a summary, if you're lifting wording you're doing summarizing wrong. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There was at one point a proposal to just copy and paste the close, but that didn't get wide support for a variety of reasons. Consenus is to summarize, not copy. That could of course change, it isn't right or wrong in an absolute sense just in a following consensus sense. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:45, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's a large difference between just copy and pasting the close, which has its own host of issues, and just lifting parts of the close it said the best. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:55, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Providing attribution through a link in my edit summary would be enough per WP:CWW. And even if I did not have that link, the only new thing from the close summary I've added to the entry ever is "A slight consensus", which certainly falls under "common expressions and idioms"; the rest is simply reordering and my own copyediting of what has already been attributed. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:32, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I am blind, (and there have been cases where I overlooked something in plain sight) but I only see discussions prior to 2021 on there? The one I linked is from this year.Slomo666 (talk) 22:59, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was stunned when I saw the RSP changes. I've not waded through the RfC yet, but I'm never impressed with an RfC that radically changes general consensus without a healthy discussion section. --Hipal (talk) 02:32, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely hard to parse when discussion is not in a separate section, so hard to draw clear conclusions.
Free Beacon's clear bias and combative approach are problematic. It looks like they're using a tabloid style to attract readers while at least the basic facts they present are reliable. There's large variation in the quality of their articles. It's a BLP and POV minefield. --Hipal (talk) 17:16, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By contrast, I find the discussion section often devoid of the main issue at debate, except for the rare 10% of discussions where the survey is terse. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:57, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed the white WP:DISCOGS / WP:RSDISCOGS links in the Discogs table row don't work. But then I realized nearly all the white boxes are broken links to Wikipedia:WP:Foo pages that don't exist. For Discogs, the first one is garbled with the extra pipe symbols:
is more straightforward and still bogus, leading to an empty "Start the Wikipedia:WP:DISCOGS page.". There's no Wikipedia:WP namespace within the Wikipedia namespace. Also, why is each white box followed by a
The Daily Telegraph is listed as a reliable source (with the exception of on trans issues). However, there is much evidence that it is not a reliable source as it is one of the most right-wing of UK newspapers (and generally our newspapers are on the right). It has a strong right wing bias on economic issues among other things and on international issues such as repeating pro-Israel propaganda. It generally reflects establishment views, for example, it published articles defending Andrew Windsor after he was accused of rape by Virginia Giuffre (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2023/01/27/photo-clears-duke-york-bath-sex/). Helensclegel (talk) 15:11, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Helensclegel, welcome. Have you read through all of the previous discussions on the Daily Telegraph linked in the table and in footnote r? If you have information and arguments that were not already brought forward in any of those discussions, you could start a new discussion at the noticeboard. However, if your concerns were brought up in any of the earlier discussions, it would be a waste of time since those arguments didn't sway consensus at the time. Schazjmd(talk)15:22, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I was informed by ActivelyDisinterested that I should post this here instead of on the noticeboard, so here is my discussion post. Also, note that Doc Strange reiterated his support for Slate's pop culture analysis on my previous post.
Silver seren seems to believe that within "US politics and culture", it is "commonly considered reliable".
Horse Eye's Back trusts their long-form content but suggests additional consideration for their Life column.
Doc Strange seems to regard Slate's coverage on pop music and their music critics (Chris Molanphy and Carl Wilson) as reliable.
JPxG seems to believe Slate is factually reliable and of high quality but is perhaps biased.
Given that it seems to meet WP:RSPCRITERIA, should Slate be added to the perennial sources list? I am not sure whether the first discussion qualifies since it discusses a specific column rather than the source itself.
If it doesn't qualify, would it meet the criteria if I were to open another discussion on the source? Per Special:Search/insource:"slate.com", there are 13,372 articles that cite Slate; hence, I think there would be some value in writing up some guidance on the consensus of Slate's reliability. John Kinslow (talk) 05:34, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like we need a fresh discussion with some evidence that there is a question about the reliability today, in the past, or for the publication's entire history. I'm not familiar with Slate and I don't remember the conversation you're pinging about, unfortunately. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:30, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
RSP isn't a list of every source or often-cited sources, it's a list of often-discussed sources. I don't think Slate is discussed often. Levivich (talk) 22:44, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
