Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deprecated sources

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CommunityNotesContributor (talk | contribs) at 15:35, 31 October 2024 (→How does a source become deprecated?: add WP:DEPHOW shortcut). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Deprecated sources are indicated with a stop sign icon in the list of perennial sources.

Deprecated sources are highly questionable sources that editors are discouraged from citing in articles, because they fail the reliable sources guideline in nearly all circumstances. Use of these sources may generate edit filter warnings for registered users and may be automatically reverted for edits from IP addresses.

Deprecation is a formalization that arises from Wikipedia’s normal processes for evaluating sources. It primarily exists to save time by avoiding the endless discussion of the same issues, and to raise awareness among editors of the status of the sources in question. For example, if editors are unfamiliar with either the specific sources or the general sourcing requirements, they can be saved the experience of having their work undone later on. Deprecation can be proposed with a request for comment at the reliable sources noticeboard, and the restrictions are only applied if there is community consensus.[1]

Since there are an endless number of poor sources, there are also an endless number of sources that would be deprecated if we bothered to have discussions on them. These sources have always been de facto deprecated as a normal result of our policies and guidelines that try to ensure that we use reputable sources. A discussion that results in deprecation may involve a change or clarification of editorial consensus (thus resulting in a change of current practice), but the only effect of deprecation alone is to explicitly codify the source’s pre-existing status, as already determined by Wikipedia’s sourcing requirements. It does not inherently change how they are evaluated under those requirements.

Deprecated sources should not be considered to be either unique or uniquely unreliable. They may be those that are most often cited by unaware editors, or those that come up in discussion the most often – for example, due to real-world controversy, borderline reliability, or a tendency to be promoted on-wiki despite a lack of reliability. Since there are many reasons that a source may be unreliable, the specific reasons for deprecation vary from case to case. The first source to be formally deprecated was the Daily Mail, which was determined by community consensus in a 2017 RfC to have a "reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication". This RfC became a landmark decision, and new deprecation proposals are usually based on language from its closing summary.

Deprecating a source is different from blocking the source (blacklisting), which is generally done to address spam-related issues.

Effects of deprecation

Deprecated sources are restricted in three ways, most of which were discussed in the 2017 Daily Mail RfC:

  1. The source is designated as generally unreliable.
    • Citing the source as a reference is generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. Images and quotations should also be avoided, since they can be manipulated or fabricated. If the source contains material that cannot be found in more reliable sources, it may be valid to assume that the material in question is incorrect. The source may only be used when there is a demonstrable need to use it instead of other sources.
    • The source is no longer used to determine notability.
  2. Typically, the source is listed on User:XLinkBot/RevertList and User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList. XLinkBot automatically reverts links to the source that are added by unregistered users and accounts under seven days old. This behavior is subject to restrictions, which are described in the lists themselves.
  3. Typically, an edit filter set to "warn" is implemented, which displays a message to editors having contributed more than 7 days and who are attempting to cite the source in an article, notifying them of the existing consensus and asking them if they want to proceed. At this point, the editor may choose to cancel the edit, or dismiss the warning and complete the edit.

Deprecated sources with few valid use cases may be blocked due to persistent abuse. This involves the source being added to the spam blacklist and/or the Wikimedia global spam blacklist, which prevents editors from saving contributions containing a link to the source. It is not necessary for a source to be deprecated to be blocked, nor are all deprecated sources blocked.

Acceptable uses of deprecated sources

Deprecation is not a blanket retroactive "ban" on using the source in absolutely every situation, contrary to what has been reported in media headlines.[2] In particular, reliability always depends on the specific content being cited, and all sources are reliable in at least some circumstances and unreliable in at least some others. Citations to deprecated sources should not be removed indiscriminately, and each case should be reviewed separately. While some deprecated sources have been completely eliminated as references, others have not.

Looking forward, however, the addition of new references from deprecated sources is extremely rare. Deprecated sources can normally be cited as a primary source when the source itself is the subject of discussion, such as to describe its own viewpoint. The verifiability policy provides an additional exception: a questionable source may be used for information on itself, subject to the conditions in WP:ABOUTSELF (see also WP:SPS and WP:BLPSELFPUB). An external link to the source can be included on an article about the source. Editors are also expected to use common sense and act to improve the encyclopedia. If an exception applies, the source can be evaluated and used like any other. Deprecation does not change the application of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and the use of all sources continues to be governed by WP:RS and WP:V.

Additional exceptions may be specific to individual sources as summarized in the RfC: for example, the 2017 closure of the Daily Mail RfC mentioned that participants said it may have been more reliable historically.

What deprecation is and isn't

Deprecation is a status indicating that a source almost always falls below Wikipedia's standards of reliability, and that uses of the source must fall within one of the established acceptable uses. Establishing new types of acceptable use requires a demonstration that the source is uniquely reliable in those particular circumstances compared to other possible uses of the source.

Deprecating a source is a weaker measure than blocking or banning it, and the terms are not comparable to each other. Wikipedia's equivalent to blocking is blacklisting, which is an entirely separate mechanism, and websites are usually only blacklisted if they are involved in spam-related issues, such as external link spamming. Blacklisted sources are listed at the English Wikipedia spam blacklist and the Wikimedia global spam blacklist, with new proposals submitted at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. External links to blacklisted sources cannot be included in edits, and editors will be shown an error message. In contrast, deprecated sources can technically be entered by editors as long as they are not on either of the spam blacklists.

How does a source become deprecated?

Shortcut

To start a discussion on deprecation, start a request for comment at the reliable sources noticeboard (RSN).[1] Editors will then evaluate the source and determine whether there is a consensus for deprecation. However, if the source is not already de facto deprecated as current practice, or if the source has not already been discussed at length in the past, it may be a better idea to start a regular RSN discussion instead.

In general, a source that is proposed for deprecation should be either frequently used or frequently discussed. Additionally, in order to prevent instruction creep, sources that should be particularly obvious (for example, satire sites such as The Onion or The Babylon Bee) are unlikely to be formally deprecated unless there are editors seriously arguing for their reliability. Similarly, the fact that there may be non-deprecated sources which are just as bad as (or even worse than) a source under consideration is not considered to be a valid argument against deprecation.[3]

What sources are de facto deprecated?

See also: List of fake news websites

Any source that fails the reliable sources guideline in nearly all circumstances. While we will never have an exhaustive list, most deprecation to date has focused on sources that promote known falsehoods, particularly debunked conspiracy theories. This does not have to be intentional and may be a result of factors such as poor fact checking or sensationalism. One might assume, for instance, that fake news websites are effectively deprecated, as are sources that promote pseudoscience or denialism. The pages on potentially unreliable sources and perennially discussed sources may also be helpful.

In a highly-attended 2020 discussion, there was consensus to deprecate OpIndia and Swarajya. For procedural reasons, these sources were not formally deprecated (because the discussion was not a request for comment), but they can be assumed to have essentially the same status. In another case, de facto deprecation was subsequently formalized by RfC for the category of state-sponsored disinformation, in order to confirm the use of measures such as edit filtering.[4]

Currently deprecated sources

Shortcut

Since each source proposed for deprecation has to be discussed separately, we cannot formally deprecate all possible sources that deserve it. As described above, the fact that an unreliable source is listed here does not make it inherently different from an unreliable source that is not listed here.

Deprecated sources
Source Status
(legend) 		Discussions Uses
List Last Summary

#section-h:Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources

Legend

See also

References

  1. ^ a b Requests for comment are created using the {{rfc}} template; see WP:RFC for the technical instructions. A common approach to posing the RfC question can be seen in this example.
  2. ^ Multiple sources:
    • Kalev Leetaru (2 October 2017). "What Wikipedia's Daily Mail 'Ban' Tells Us About The Future Of Online Censorship". Forbes. Retrieved 25 December 2018.
    • Jasper Jackson (8 February 2017). "Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' source". The Guardian. Retrieved 21 November 2018.
    • Jon Sharman (9 February 2017). "Wikipedia bans Daily Mail because it's an 'unreliable source'". The Independent. Retrieved 21 November 2018.
    • Sebastian Anthony (10 February 2017). "Wikipedia bans Daily Mail for "poor fact checking, sensationalism, flat-out fabrication"". Ars Technica. Retrieved 21 November 2018.
    • Also see Daily Mail § Other criticisms.
  3. ^ See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, as well as the formal closure of this RfC (quote: "That we use other trash-sources is never a good reason to oppose (for it can be effectively weaponised as a circular argument across discussions, to prevent deprecation of any source at all) and there is nothing prohibiting any interested editor from launching referendum-RFCs for those sources.")
  4. ^ The text of the proposal was:
    • Sites identified by reputable sources as state-sponsored fake news / disinformation should be:
    1. Presumptively deprecated and listed at an addendum or sister-page of WP:RSP as such (with evidence).
    2. Added to an edit filter with "Prevent the user from performing the action in question" and a suitably stated warning.
    3. Removed expeditiously along with any text that might be challenged (or, if text is left, {{cn}} added); the use of semi-automated tools is appropriate for this.
    • If in doubt, consensus should be sought here [at WP:RSN] prior to addition.
  5. ^ "Apple Daily: Hong Kong pro-democracy paper announces closure". BBC News. June 23, 2021. Archived from the original on June 24, 2021. Retrieved June 24, 2021.
  6. ^ Sato, Mia (July 6, 2023). "G/O Media's AI 'innovation' is off to a rocky start". The Verge. Retrieved February 27, 2024.
  7. ^ "Ballotpedia: About". Ballotpedia. Archived from the original on November 7, 2018. Retrieved October 23, 2018.
  8. ^ Bond, Paul (December 2, 2018). "TheBlaze and CRTV Merge to Create Conservative Media Powerhouse (Exclusive)". The Hollywood Reporter. Archived from the original on December 18, 2018. Retrieved December 23, 2018.
  9. ^ Mitchell, Amy; Gottfried, Jeffrey; Kiley, Jocelyn; Matsa, Katerina Eva (October 21, 2014). "Media Sources: Distinct Favorites Emerge on the Left and Right". Pew Research Center. Archived from the original on October 20, 2018. Retrieved October 23, 2018.
  10. ^ Wang, Shan (September 15, 2017). "BuzzFeed's strategy for getting content to do well on all platforms? Adaptation and a lot of A/B testing". Nieman Lab. Archived from the original on November 21, 2018. Retrieved October 23, 2018.
  11. ^ Wang, Shan (July 18, 2018). "The investigations and reporting of BuzzFeed News – *not* BuzzFeed – are now at their own BuzzFeedNews.com". Nieman Lab. Archived from the original on November 30, 2018. Retrieved October 23, 2018.
  12. ^ Waclawiak, Karolina (5 May 2023). "A Final Editor's Note". BuzzFeed News. Retrieved 21 June 2023.
  13. ^ Harris, Malcolm (September 19, 2018). "The Big Secret of Celebrity Wealth (Is That No One Knows Anything)". The New York Times. Archived from the original on September 27, 2018. Retrieved September 29, 2018.
  14. ^ Sato, Mia (2023-08-09). "CNET is deleting old articles to try to improve its Google Search ranking". The Verge. Retrieved 2023-08-10.
  15. ^ "Our Portfolio". Digital Currency Group. Archived from the original on August 23, 2018. Retrieved November 21, 2018.
  16. ^ "Fact Check: Is Mohammed the Most Popular Name for Newborn Boys in the Netherlands?". Snopes.com. Retrieved April 29, 2018.
  17. ^ "Carson Didn't Find HUD Errors". FactCheck.org. April 19, 2017. Retrieved April 29, 2018.
  18. ^ Dreyfuss, Emily (May 3, 2017). "RIP About.com". Wired. Archived from the original on August 25, 2018. Retrieved December 29, 2018.
  19. ^ Shields, Mike (December 18, 2017). "About.com had become a web relic, so its owner blew it up – and now it's enjoying a surge in revenue". Business Insider. Archived from the original on June 25, 2018. Retrieved December 29, 2018.
  20. ^ "Contribute – Find A Grave". www.findagrave.com. Archived from the original on July 31, 2018. Retrieved July 30, 2018.
  21. ^ Davis, Wes (July 8, 2023). "Gizmodo's staff isn't happy about G/O Media's AI-generated content". The Verge. Retrieved February 27, 2024.
  22. ^ Zadrozny, Brandy; Ortiz, Erik (2024-11-14). "The Onion wins Alex Jones' Infowars in bankruptcy auction". NBC News. Retrieved 2024-11-14.
  23. ^ Gold, Hadas (2024-12-11). "Judge blocks The Onion's purchase of Alex Jones' Infowars". CNN. Retrieved 2024-12-11.
  24. ^ Vincent, James (May 7, 2021). "LiveLeak, the internet's font of gore and violence, has shut down". The Verge. Archived from the original on May 15, 2021. Retrieved May 15, 2021.
  25. ^ See https://kanalregister.hkdir.no/publiseringskanaler/KanalForlagInfo.action?id=26778 (the publisher's summary page) and click on "Vis [+]" in "Assosierte tidsskrift" line to see the list and their ratings. As of February 2024, 13 (5.2%) of the 250 journals listed were rated X (under review) and 11 (4.4%) were rated 0 (unsuitable for scholarly publications, although they do not label them as predatory per se).]
  26. ^ Plunkett, Luke (December 5, 2019). "RIP Gamerankings.com". Kotaku. G/O Media. Retrieved December 6, 2019.
  27. ^ "GameRankings Shutting down". Archived from the original on 2019-12-04.
  28. ^ McAloon, Alissa (December 5, 2019). "Review aggregator site GameRankings is shutting down". Gamasutra. Retrieved December 5, 2019.
  29. ^ "Iran's Press TV: Broadcasting Anti-Semitism to the English-Speaking World" (PDF). Anti-Defamation League. October 17, 2013. Archived (PDF) from the original on January 3, 2019. Retrieved August 8, 2018.
  30. ^ MacFarquhar, Neil (August 28, 2016). "A Powerful Russian Weapon: The Spread of False Stories". The New York Times. Archived from the original on February 21, 2017. Retrieved August 29, 2016.
  31. ^ Carless, Simon (June 23, 2008). "Analysis: What VGChartz Does (And Doesn't) Do For The Game Biz". Game Developer. Retrieved October 3, 2014.
  32. ^ "Can we trust Wikipedia? 1.4 billion people can't be wrong". The Independent. February 19, 2018. Archived from the original on February 11, 2019. Retrieved February 22, 2019.
  1. ^ See also these discussions of Academia.edu: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
    These discussions of ResearchGate: 1 2 3 4
    These discussions of Zenodo: 1 2
  2. ^ See also these discussions of Advameg: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 A
  3. ^ See these discussions of Al Jazeera: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 A B
  4. ^ See these discussions of Associated Press:1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
  5. ^ See these discussions of BBC: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 A
  6. ^ See also these discussions of Behind the Voice Actors: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A
  7. ^ See these discussions of Blogger: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
  8. ^ See also these discussions of Breitbart News: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 A
  9. ^ See also these discussions of BuzzFeed News: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
  10. ^ See these discussions of The Christian Science Monitor: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
  11. ^ See these discussions of CNET: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
  12. ^ See these discussions of CNN: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 A
  13. ^ See also these discussions of CounterPunch: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
  14. ^ See these discussions of The Daily Dot: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 A
  15. ^ Edit filter change Edit filter change Edit filter change Edit filter change Edit filter change Edit filter change
  16. ^ See also these discussions of the Daily Mail: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54
  17. ^ See these discussions of The Daily Telegraph: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 20 21
  18. ^ See these discussions of Dotdash Meredith: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 A
  19. ^ See these discussions of Encyclopædia Britannica: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
  20. ^ See also these discussions of Facebook: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
  21. ^ See these discussions of Forbes: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A
  22. ^ See these discussions of Forbes.com contributors: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
  23. ^ a b c Local Fox affiliates are considered distinct from Fox News, and are covered by WP:NEWSORG.
  24. ^ See also these discussions of Fox News (news excluding politics and science): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
  25. ^ See also these discussions of Fox News (politics and science): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
  26. ^ See these discussions of GameSpot: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A B C D E F G H I
  27. ^ See these discussions of GlobalSecurity.org: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
  28. ^ See these discussions of The Guardian: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
  29. ^ See these discussions of The Guardian blogs: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
  30. ^ See these discussions of Haaretz: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
  31. ^ See these discussions of The Hill: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
  32. ^ See these discussions of HuffPost (excluding politics): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
  33. ^ See these discussions of HuffPost (politics): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
  34. ^ See these discussions of HuffPost contributors: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
  35. ^ See these discussions of IGN: 1 2 3 4 5 6 A B C D E F
  36. ^ See also these discussions of IMDb: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 A B C D E F G
  37. ^ See also these discussions of Business Insider: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
  38. ^ See these discussions of Joshua Project: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 A B
  39. ^ See these discussions of LinkedIn: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
  40. ^ See also these discussions of Media Matters for America: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
  41. ^ See these discussions of Metacritic: 1 2 A B C D E F G H
  42. ^ See these discussions of Metro (UK): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
  43. ^ See also these discussions of New York Post: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
  44. ^ See also these discussions of The New York Times: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46
  45. ^ a b See also these discussions of Newsweek: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
  46. ^ See also these discussions of peerage websites (self-published): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
  47. ^ See also these discussions of PinkNews: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
  48. ^ See these discussions of arXiv: 1 2 3 4 A B
    These discussions of bioRxiv: 1 2
    These discussions of SSRN: 1 2 3
  49. ^ See also these discussions of Quackwatch: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 A B
  50. ^ See these discussions of RhythmOne: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 A B
  51. ^ See these discussions of RIA Novosti: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A
  52. ^ See also these discussions of Rotten Tomatoes: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 A B C D
  53. ^ Edit filter change Edit filter change Edit filter change Edit filter change
  54. ^ See these discussions of Salon: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
  55. ^ See these discussions of Snopes: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
  56. ^ See these discussions of the Southern Poverty Law Center: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 A
  57. ^ See these discussions of Der Spiegel: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
  58. ^ Edit filter change Edit filter change Edit filter change Edit filter change Edit filter change Edit filter change Edit filter change Edit filter change
  59. ^ See also these discussions of The Sun (UK): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
  60. ^ See also these discussions of The Times: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
  61. ^ See these discussions of TMZ: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
  62. ^ See these discussions of Twitter: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
  63. ^ See also these discussions of VGChartz: A B C D E F G H I J
  64. ^ See these discussions of Vice Media: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
  65. ^ See these discussions of The Washington Post: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
  66. ^ See these discussions of WikiLeaks: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
  67. ^ See these discussions of WP: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 A
  68. ^ See these discussions of WordPress.com: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
  69. ^ See also these discussions of WorldNetDaily: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
  70. ^ See these discussions of World Socialist Web Site: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
  71. ^ See these discussions of Yahoo News: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 A
  72. ^ See also these discussions of YouTube: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 A
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deprecated_sources&oldid=1254554583"