• Public

  • Public
  • Network
  • Groups
  • Featured
  • Popular
  • People

To reduce repetitive conversations about commonly cited sources, Wikipedia maintains a list of “perennial sources” — publications that are frequently used, and whose reliability is a recurring topic of time-consuming discussions about source usability.g The list segments publications from “generally reliable in its areas of expertise” to “generally unreliable” (use is normally not acceptable) or, more rarely, “deprecated” (use is rarely acceptable). However, source reliability is still taken case-by-case on Wikipedia, depending heavily on not just the publisher and its editorial practices, but also the statements a citation is intended to support, and the specifics of the article being cited. There are articles published in “generally reliable” publications that shouldn’t be used as sources on Wikipedia, and there are articles published in “generally unreliable” or even “deprecated” publications that are reasonably used as sources. This controversial page documenting the general view of reliability for some popular publications is anything but the canonical list of “approved” or “banned” sources many of its critics claim it to be. Whether a source is usable on Wikipedia is a case-by-case decision, as the page itself makes clear: What this page is a list of sources whose suitability for most/general purposes has been discussed repeatedly What this page is not a list of pre-approved sources that can be always used without regard for the ordinary rules of editing a list of ba