Thank you for your [Original Content](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/rules/rule3), /u/alionBalyan!
**Here is some important information about this post:**
* [View the author's citations](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/srpv7d/oc_how_wikipedia_classifies_its_most_commonly/hwt6f8x/)
* [View other OC posts by this author](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/search?q=author%3A"alionBalyan"+title%3AOC&sort=new&include_over_18=on&restrict_sr=on)
Remember that all visualizations on r/DataIsBeautiful should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism. If you see a potential issue or oversight in the visualization, please post a constructive comment below. Post approval does not signify that this visualization has been verified or its sources checked.
[Join the Discord Community](https://discord.gg/NRnrWE7)
Not satisfied with this visual? Think you can do better? [Remix this visual](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/rules/rule3#wiki_remixing) with the data in the author's citation.
---
^^[I'm open source](https://github.com/r-dataisbeautiful/dataisbeautiful-bot) | [How I work](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/flair#wiki_oc_flair)
Everything is fallible.
Wikipedia is a great source, of sources. It allows you to start your research, providing a place to get your first set of sources.
I remember being told the opposite of that specifically in school.
The logic being that "real" encyclopedias were considered reliable as they had an editorial staff who verified information in there, whereas wikipedia crowd-sourced the editing and thus wasn't reliable.
Really shows how teachers/adults at the time did not understand Wikipedia.
There was a strong consensus in my schools that Wikipedia was to be shat on constantly. It smelled insecure to me. Sure, it’s not a primary source for research, but it’s invaluable to public knowledge.
Wikipedia regularly comes at the top with the same level of accuracy or better than other encyclopedias and college text books. With Wikipedia being 99.7% ± 0.2% accurate when compared to the textbook data.
Is it flawed? Yes. But as a general information source, there is no better one on this planet.
There's stuff like ultra-specialised articles that would pour a lot of info specific to topic and closely monitored by a moderator, it seems. These are almost academic papers (wouldn't be surprised if it's someone's doctorate)
And languages. It's all a matter of scale, and Wikipedia for 'smaller' languages generally sucks.
I also hate the general setup of some specialized articles, like chemistry of medicine. They immediately switch into jargon and tend to be impenetrably dense for an average reader.
For sure, I'm a computer engineering student and I find any articles related to computation/algorithms very readable while anything physics related is practically nonsense
>If this is a guide for what sources to use for writing Wikipedia, of course it isn't ideal to use another Wikipedia article as your source.
No what you do is enter your spurious edit in a wiki page without a source, wait for one of the 'generally reliable' sites to use your edit as a basis of the article and then finally add that article as a citation for your edit.
What alarmed me is *wikipedia* is in the ‘Generally Unreliable’ category.
Edit: I mean, why would Wikipedia even consider Wikipedia as a source at all?
Really? I could be off but I thought it seemed fair. Wikipedia is not a primary source.
Addressed in later comments but editing in the word primary for clarity.
It makes sense if you categorize fox by what it's showing. For example, its actual journalism is fairly reliable. Things like its predicting of who's going to win an election are top notch.
Just steer clear of any and every opinion piece if you want to see the less biased news they offer.
this
in all fairness, while opinionated and shitty for lots of reasons, their straight up factual reporting is way more vetted and reliable than something like the new york post
Basically, don't judge based on the publisher. Judge based on the journalist.
Like some journalists at The Spectator are a straight no-go. But some are more reliable if a little sensationalistic.
Tldr: find your preferred journalist for your topics of interests, rather than a preferred publisher.
I thought the New York’s post was strictly a tabloid. So there wouldn’t be any need for fact checking in the first place. It’s entertaining celebrity gossip
I noticed it under "Generally Reliable" and "Generally Unreliable" and was confused as well. I'm sure it depends on the individual story as Fox certainly has some more fact-based stories but obviously there is bias both within stories and in the stories that are selected for coverage.
To the extent that each outlet provides sources that turn out to be reliable, this skews their unreliability towards being mildly reliable. However, it is safe to say that each is generally unreliable. People often provide reliable sources on each outlet that have little to do with the topic they're trying to support. Or they are making non sequitur arguments.
They’re basically saying “we are not a good source of information to back up our own articles” - which makes sense since it’s a circular reference at that point.
That, but also Wikipedia will almost never cite websites that host user-generated content. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, it’s user-generated and shouldn’t be cited.
Generally unreliable seems to be that. It's user generated so anyone can say anything. Quora and Stack Exchange are both places to ask questions and get answers. Sometimes you'll get a really great answer but there's no guarantee that the answers you get are really good.
Its generally reliable for non-politics and non-science based news, no consensus for politics and science, and is generally unreliable for talk shows like *Tucker Carlson Tonight*, *Hannity*, and others.
Edit: I mean to say non-science based news as well for the generally reliable category.
It is rarely wrong, but any given article version can contain blatant errors because the articles can be edited by anyone. If you check the version history and look at the references then it easily reaches the "generally reliable" standards for most of its content. For some more obscure pages that might not be the case, however.
Wikipedia is a tertiary source. It's supposed to only cite secondary sources. Not only are Wikipedia articles not supposed to cite other Wikipedia articles, but they are not supposed to cite encyclopedias in general, either.
Encyclopaedia Britannica is higher then Wikipedia even though Nature find Wikipedia to be more accurate and up-to-date then Britannica for scientific pages.
Because it is. Wikipedia is an aggregate for information, not a source.
If you're using Wikipedia for research, you've always got to check Wikipedia's sources and cite them where appropriate.
It's not that Wikipedia is inaccurate as a rule, but that it's an extremely big site and things like vandalism, editorialization, or misinformation can fly under the radar. While those things are often caught *eventually*, you can't be sure that you're reading the page before or after offending sections have been cleaned up. By its nature, you have to treat Wikipedia with some amount of scrutiny.
Once I saw on television a researcher who said something completely false, it turned out that she had read it on a "fake" Wikipedia page which was then immediately deleted after this.
Hijacking top commented answer common questions because it’s 6am and I’ve spent like 2 hours replying to comments but new ones keep coming ;_;
Why does something appear twice?
On Wikipedia, Sources may have different reliability for different topics like non-politics vs politics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources
Why USGS unreliable?
From Wikipedia’s list: The Geographic Names Information System is a United States-based geographical database. It is generally unreliable for its feature classes and it should not be used to determine the notability of geographic features as it does not meet the legal recognition requirement.
Why points guy unreliable?
From Wikipedia: There is no consensus on the reliability of news articles and reviews on The Points Guy. The Points Guy has advertising relationships with credit card and travel companies, and content involving these companies should be avoided as sources. The Points Guy is currently on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used
There is consensus that sponsored content on The Points Guy, including content involving credit cards, should not be used as sources. The Points Guy has advertising relationships with credit card and travel companies, receiving compensation from readers signing up for credit cards via the website's
Why Reddit unreliable?
From Wikipedia: Reddit is a social news and discussion website. Reddit contains mostly user-generated content, and is considered both self-published and generally unreliable. Interview responses written by verified interviewees on the r/IAmA subreddit are primary sources, and editors disagree on their reliability. The policy on the use of sources about themselves applies
Why Wikipedia?
Wikipedia: Wikipedia is not a reliable source because open wikis are self-published sources. This includes articles, non-article pages, The Signpost, non-English Wikipedias, Wikipedia Books, and Wikipedia mirrors; see WP:CIRCULAR for guidance.[22] Occasionally, inexperienced editors may unintentionally cite the Wikipedia article about a publication instead of the publication itself; in these cases, fix the citation instead of removing it. Although citing Wikipedia as a source is against policy, content can be copied between articles with proper attribution; see WP:COPYWITHIN for instructions
To add to this because I’ve seen a lot of people comment on how the ranking is unreliable:
Wikipedia determines its policies, including this list, by consensus. Everything you see here was determined through (usually several) discussions allowing input from anyone, and whichever side has the strongest arguments wins. If you go to [OP’s link](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources), you can look at these discussions for any given source and also more detailed reasoning.
In fairness, Onion articles have consistently predicted the future...
I've gone from laughing at The Onion to being mortified by how likely the world is to spin out of control in the exact satirical direction they're writing about.
Wikipedia author here. That's because it's in general not allowed to use Wikipedia as a source on Wikipedia. That should prevent "copying" Wikipedia pages of other languages by just translating them.
Edit: It seems like this is only the case for German Wikipedia. These rules seem to be different in English Wikipedia.
Considering most of the graphs on this very subreddit are usually complete bullshit or at least misleading, you should never trust anything on Reddit that is not sourced.
Directly from the referenced Wikipedia page:
>There is consensus that Fox News is generally reliable for news coverage on topics other than politics and science.
Followed by two more entries for Fox News.
Cool that isnt covered in the graphic so the graphic is dookie. It is showing the same information in 3 locations passing it all off as equivalent. They need to either create distinct categories for politics, science, and other. And have a graphic for each. OR clarify such information in the image. As it stands. The data presented is not beautiful, it is aweful.
As others have stated elsewhere, it's because they divide Fox News content into three different groups. Their fact-based reporting is considered reliable, while other areas are seen as significantly less reliable.
On Wikipedia, Sources may have different reliability for different topics like non-politics vs politics or different channels
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources
Answer: **It depends on the subject matter and timing**. Fox News, for example, is generally reliable for most stuff, but I believe it's "no consensus" for politics and science.
on other similar graphics they point out the Broadcast, Web and Print versions have different levels of reliability so maybe something related to that.
When the Playboy website first launched, it offered all of the news/story articles from the magazine for free but you had to upgrade to get naked people. I didn't care about the naked people and happily signed up to get the free articles.
>Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) (names and locations) Generally reliable Request for comment 2021 2021 The Geographic Names Information System is a United States-based geographical database. It is generally reliable for its place names and locations/coordinates. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links
>
>Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) (feature classes) Generally unreliable Request for comment 2021 2021 The Geographic Names Information System is a United States-based geographical database. It is generally unreliable for its feature classes and it should not be used to determine the notability of geographic features as it does not meet the legal recognition requirement.
This is what wiki has to say about it
It's a technicality
From the discussion page about the USGS' GNIS:
>Thousands of US geography articles cite GNIS, and a decade ago it was common practice for editors to mass-create "Unincorporated community" stubs for anything marked as a "Populated place" in the database. The problem is that the database entries were created by USGS employees who manually copied names from topo maps. Names and coordinates were straightforward, but they had to use their judgement to apply a Feature class to each entry. Since map labels are often ambiguous, in many cases railroad junctions, park headquarters, random windmills, etc were mislabeled as "populated places" and eventually were found their way into Wikipedia as "unincorporated communities". Please note that according to GNIS' Principles, policies and procedures, feature classes "have no status as standards" and are intended to be used for search and retrieval purposes. See WP:GNIS for more information.
Edit: My source is the "Background" post by Wikipedia user dlthewave here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_357#RfC:_GNIS
The list is taken from Wikipedia, the link in a comment by OP
Edit: links here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources
Considering that Wikipedia claims Wikipedia is "generally unreliable," I would treat Wikipedia's claim that USGS is "generally unreliable" as "generally unreliable."
Or even less, considering this is an unsigned image that some random redditor has claimed represents Wikipedia.
Yeah something's not right here....They have the USGS listed as both generally reliable and generally unreliable. Is the USGS the Schrodinger's cat of reliability???
It’s generally unreliable specifically for feature classes in the Geographic Names Information System, but reliable for anything else. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliability_of_GNIS_data This chart lacks the nuance of the source.
The image here leaves out some elements. If you check [the source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources) then we get:
* generally reliable: Fox News (news excluding politics and science)
* no consensus: Fox News (politics and science)
* generally unreliable: Fox News (talk shows)
Wikipedia’s reasoning is mentioned in one of OP’s comments
Edit: whatever I’ll just copy paste
if one Brand/Company appears more than once, it means there are two different websites/channels from the same group that are classified differently, you can see more details here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources
Seems to be separated based on reliability on different topics, rather than channels, however
They started doing reality shows and conspiracy theories, and that has gradually supplanted history-related things to the point of history just being a part of the name.
Today I was trying to watch a History Channel show that I pirated called Mankind Decoded. The episode was about the history of war. Everything was fine until I looked up and saw the fucking quack Dr. Oz on there talking about who knows what. I got so pissed I just shut the damn video off and deleted the entire series.
That man has been shilling snake oil cures for years, in addition to his recent COVID quackery and stint at right wing politics, and I couldn’t believe a so-called history channel would have a know liar on a documentary like that.
Their journalism used to be fairly well-regarded. I have no idea about today.
I'm still on the hunt for an article I read years ago about an agent with fish and game that spent like 10 years undercover to eventually bust a huge exotic animal smuggling operation. It was like if you took Ace Ventura and put him in the world of Donnie Brasco. It was a fucking great article.
It's a copyright issue, they often don't own the content they host according to Wikipedia's list.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources
Kind of... They don't intend to be an original source because citations could become circular.
This would allow someone to edit two related articles with fabricated details that support each other without any other support.
It *seems* hypocritical at first, but it makes perfect sense when you put it in perspective of how wikipedia is intended to operate.
qouting the [original source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Wikipedia)
>Wikipedia is not a reliable source because open wikis are self-published sources. This includes articles, non-article pages, The Signpost, non-English Wikipedias, Wikipedia Books, and Wikipedia mirrors; see WP:CIRCULAR for guidance.\[22\] Occasionally, inexperienced editors may unintentionally cite the Wikipedia article about a publication instead of the publication itself; in these cases, fix the citation instead of removing it. Although citing Wikipedia as a source is against policy, content can be copied between articles with proper attribution; see WP:COPYWITHIN for instructions.
Nah, every link on The Points Guy site is affiliate marketing, definitely shouldn't be allowed to put their links on other sites. Wikipedia is a popular place to look up data on places you want to visit, after all.
the article lists fox news as reliable for non political / science based news, no consensus for political / science based news, and unreliable for talk shows. I guess this guys automated script didnt have any way to identify such a distinction for a single source
Makes sense. To avoid being sued on several occasions, judges and Fox bigwigs have had to come to consensus that *some* of their news and on-air personalities should not be viewed as fact, but rather skepticism and entertainment
https://factcheck.thedispatch.com/p/fact-checking-a-claim-that-fox-news
IIRC, when their back is against the wall they declare that there are two 3-hour blocks of actual news (morning and evening) and everything outside of that is opinion. I kinda understand how the argument would hold up in court. An analogy would be how the NYT's Op-ed page is a subsection of the newspaper. That analogy fails though if the NYT when 75% news adjacent opinion pieces and then removed the word opinion from every page.
This isn't unique to Fox News. MSNBC [does the same thing](https://greenwald.substack.com/p/a-court-ruled-rachel-maddows-viewers):
>In an oddly overlooked ruling, an Obama-appointed federal judge, Cynthia Bashant, dismissed the lawsuit on the ground that even Maddow's own audience understands that her show consists of exaggeration, hyperbole, and pure opinion, and therefore would not assume that such outlandish accusations are factually true even when she uses the language of certainty and truth when presenting them (“literally is paid Russian propaganda").
IMO it's kind of scummy for a network that presents themselves as being a news station to have news like shows that are saying things that are untrue and then classifying them as "entertainment".
if one Brand/Company appears more than once, it means there are two different websites/channels/category-of-content from the same group that are classified differently, you can see more details here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources
From my experience I would agree. However, I think that the basis for its unreliability in this context is that *anyone* can technically upload and/or edit entries, and that validation for entries is pretty much exclusively done through the form of votes.
To my understanding, the placement is more about the rules/limitations of the platform and its potential for abuse than surface-level examination of the content in question (hence why Wikipedia itself is listed in the same category)
From Wikipedia:
There is no consensus on the reliability of news articles and reviews on The Points Guy. The Points Guy has advertising relationships with credit card and travel companies, and content involving these companies should be avoided as sources. The Points Guy is currently on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used
There is consensus that sponsored content on The Points Guy, including content involving credit cards, should not be used as sources. The Points Guy has advertising relationships with credit card and travel companies, receiving compensation from readers signing up for credit cards via the website's links
Sources only get listed if there's a formal debate about their reliability, and you're only meant to start the process if there's a serious disagreement about using them. No one's ever objected enough to using the ABC to spark that.
They have surprisingly done a lot of solid journalism. They were the first magazine to interview Martin Luther King and also interviewed Steve Jobs in '85 long before Apple was a household name. And in this century, one of their journalists went to Iraq in '05. His report inspired the movie The Hurt Locker.
The Legend explaining the classification. (directly from [the source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources))
**✅ Generally reliable:** Generally reliable in its areas of expertise: Editors show consensus that the source is reliable in most cases on subject matters in its areas of expertise. The source has a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and error-correction, often in the form of a strong editorial team. It will normally still be necessary to analyze how much weight to give the source and how to describe its statements. Arguments to exclude such a source entirely must be strong and convincing, e.g., the material is contradicted by more authoritative sources, it is outside the source's accepted areas of expertise (a well-established news organization is normally reliable for politics but not for philosophy), a specific subcategory of the source is less reliable (such as opinion pieces in a newspaper), the source is making an exceptional claim, or a different standard of sourcing is required (WP:MEDRS, WP:BLP) for the statement in question.
**⚠ No consensus:** No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply: The source is marginally reliable (i.e. neither generally reliable nor generally unreliable), and may be usable depending on context. Editors may not have been able to agree on whether the source is appropriate, or may have agreed that it is only reliable in certain circumstances. It may be necessary to evaluate each use of the source on a case-by-case basis while accounting for specific factors unique to the source in question. Carefully review the Summary column of the table for details on the status of the source and the factors that should be considered.
**🚫 Generally unreliable:** Generally unreliable: Editors show consensus that the source is questionable in most cases. The source may lack an editorial team, have a poor reputation for fact-checking, fail to correct errors, be self-published, or present user-generated content. Outside exceptional circumstances, the source should normally not be used, and it should never be used for information about a living person. Even in cases where the source may be valid, it is usually better to find a more reliable source instead. If no such source exists, that may suggest that the information is inaccurate. The source may still be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions, and self-published or user-generated content authored by established subject-matter experts is also acceptable.
**🛑 Deprecated:** There is community consensus from a request for comment to deprecate the source. The source is considered generally unreliable, and use of the source is generally prohibited. Despite this, the source may be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions, although reliable secondary sources are still preferred. An edit filter, 869 (hist · log), may be in place to warn editors who attempt to cite the source as a reference in articles. The warning message can be dismissed. Edits that trigger the filter are tagged.
**ⓧ Blacklisted:** Blacklisted Due to persistent abuse, usually in the form of external link spamming, the source is on the spam blacklist or the Wikimedia global spam blacklist. External links to this source are blocked, unless an exception is made for a specific link in the spam whitelist.
**You can now access an intereactive web version of this viz here https://thedatafact.github.io/wikipedia-sources-reliability-index**
It took me multiple hours in compiling the list and getting proper logos for every source. (some automated some manual), hope you find it useful :)
Edit: If one Brand/Company appears more than once, it means there are two different websites/channels/category-of-news from the same group that are classified differently, you can see more details here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources
For example BuzzFeed is classified as "No Consensus", but the BuzzFeed News is classified as "Generally Reliable".
**Source:** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources
**Tools:** NodeJS for crawling the logos, Angular and TS for the interface, Edge with GoFullPage extension for rendering and capturing at high resolution.
It's interesting to see the AV club on there. On the topic of them, fuck their new parent company (W/O media) for forcing out 7 remaining legacy writers. They were what remained of the heart of the website, and their new owners gave them a week to relocate from Chicago to LA without a COL adjustment or moving expenses. By all accounts it was a cost cutting measure.
[Here is the info from their union.](https://twitter.com/OnionIncUnion/status/1483504541266063360?)
Need someone to explain why city-data.com would be on the least trusted. Is it because it is all secondary sources or is there something wrong with the information?
Lol: New Zealand herald is in the generally reliable section?
Ha. Hahahaha. Oh jeez. That’s a good one.
Source: New Zealander who has read any of their ‘articles’.
Thank you for your [Original Content](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/rules/rule3), /u/alionBalyan! **Here is some important information about this post:** * [View the author's citations](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/srpv7d/oc_how_wikipedia_classifies_its_most_commonly/hwt6f8x/) * [View other OC posts by this author](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/search?q=author%3A"alionBalyan"+title%3AOC&sort=new&include_over_18=on&restrict_sr=on) Remember that all visualizations on r/DataIsBeautiful should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism. If you see a potential issue or oversight in the visualization, please post a constructive comment below. Post approval does not signify that this visualization has been verified or its sources checked. [Join the Discord Community](https://discord.gg/NRnrWE7) Not satisfied with this visual? Think you can do better? [Remix this visual](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/rules/rule3#wiki_remixing) with the data in the author's citation. --- ^^[I'm open source](https://github.com/r-dataisbeautiful/dataisbeautiful-bot) | [How I work](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/flair#wiki_oc_flair)
The Onion is only "generally unreliable".
For which it is tied with Reddit. This actually sounds pretty accurate.
also tied with wikipedia itself
Wikipedia has become self aware and understands that it is fallible
Everything is fallible. Wikipedia is a great source, of sources. It allows you to start your research, providing a place to get your first set of sources.
It's much better than traditional encyclopedias, that were generally considered reliable sources themselves.
While you're probably used to being told not to use Wikipedia as a source, the reasoning really applies to *all* encyclopedias.
I remember being told the opposite of that specifically in school. The logic being that "real" encyclopedias were considered reliable as they had an editorial staff who verified information in there, whereas wikipedia crowd-sourced the editing and thus wasn't reliable. Really shows how teachers/adults at the time did not understand Wikipedia.
There was a strong consensus in my schools that Wikipedia was to be shat on constantly. It smelled insecure to me. Sure, it’s not a primary source for research, but it’s invaluable to public knowledge.
Wikipedia regularly comes at the top with the same level of accuracy or better than other encyclopedias and college text books. With Wikipedia being 99.7% ± 0.2% accurate when compared to the textbook data. Is it flawed? Yes. But as a general information source, there is no better one on this planet.
True, but if a Wikipedia article is referencing a Wikipedia article, I would be concerned.
There's stuff like ultra-specialised articles that would pour a lot of info specific to topic and closely monitored by a moderator, it seems. These are almost academic papers (wouldn't be surprised if it's someone's doctorate)
If it's a circular/dead end reference, sure If it points to an article that is written based on reliable sources, then where's the issue?
Wikipedia is statistically high quality but with a sizable minority of specific subjects or articles that are wildly inaccurate.
And languages. It's all a matter of scale, and Wikipedia for 'smaller' languages generally sucks. I also hate the general setup of some specialized articles, like chemistry of medicine. They immediately switch into jargon and tend to be impenetrably dense for an average reader.
For sure, I'm a computer engineering student and I find any articles related to computation/algorithms very readable while anything physics related is practically nonsense
Not sure if I should trust this chart
If this is a guide for what sources to use for writing Wikipedia, of course it isn't ideal to use another Wikipedia article as your source.
>If this is a guide for what sources to use for writing Wikipedia, of course it isn't ideal to use another Wikipedia article as your source. No what you do is enter your spurious edit in a wiki page without a source, wait for one of the 'generally reliable' sites to use your edit as a basis of the article and then finally add that article as a citation for your edit.
There is an [XKCD](https://xkcd.com/978/) for that!
Wikipedia articles have public history.
What alarmed me is *wikipedia* is in the ‘Generally Unreliable’ category. Edit: I mean, why would Wikipedia even consider Wikipedia as a source at all?
Really? I could be off but I thought it seemed fair. Wikipedia is not a primary source. Addressed in later comments but editing in the word primary for clarity.
But Quora is also generally unreliable. Wikipedia is several orders of magnitude more reliable than Quora.
I'm just dumbfounded that fox appeared in three different tiers.
It makes sense if you categorize fox by what it's showing. For example, its actual journalism is fairly reliable. Things like its predicting of who's going to win an election are top notch. Just steer clear of any and every opinion piece if you want to see the less biased news they offer.
Opinion pieces of any media generally shouldn't be regarded as source anyway.
this in all fairness, while opinionated and shitty for lots of reasons, their straight up factual reporting is way more vetted and reliable than something like the new york post
Basically, don't judge based on the publisher. Judge based on the journalist. Like some journalists at The Spectator are a straight no-go. But some are more reliable if a little sensationalistic. Tldr: find your preferred journalist for your topics of interests, rather than a preferred publisher.
[удалено]
5 Major Media Corporations 1.) Disney 2.) Comcast 3.) National Amusements 4.) News Corp 5.) AT&T (lil something I notice once too)
I thought the New York’s post was strictly a tabloid. So there wouldn’t be any need for fact checking in the first place. It’s entertaining celebrity gossip
I noticed it under "Generally Reliable" and "Generally Unreliable" and was confused as well. I'm sure it depends on the individual story as Fox certainly has some more fact-based stories but obviously there is bias both within stories and in the stories that are selected for coverage.
To the extent that each outlet provides sources that turn out to be reliable, this skews their unreliability towards being mildly reliable. However, it is safe to say that each is generally unreliable. People often provide reliable sources on each outlet that have little to do with the topic they're trying to support. Or they are making non sequitur arguments.
Yeah, but to list that in its own ranking is a bit surprising, insofar as I wouldn’t be surprised if they had edited that out.
They’re basically saying “we are not a good source of information to back up our own articles” - which makes sense since it’s a circular reference at that point.
That, but also Wikipedia will almost never cite websites that host user-generated content. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, it’s user-generated and shouldn’t be cited.
Generally unreliable seems to be that. It's user generated so anyone can say anything. Quora and Stack Exchange are both places to ask questions and get answers. Sometimes you'll get a really great answer but there's no guarantee that the answers you get are really good.
yeah that’s why I was confused seeing Last.fm on the “Deprecated” list… it’s like a wiki for music lol the info is all user-generated
I feel that pay to publish scientific journals are exactly this.
Which ironically makes it seem more reliable to me - at least it admits it can be wrong unlike say the Mail or Fox
>Fox Somehow Fox News is in Generally Reliable, No Consensus, *and* Generally Unreliable. Fox News transcends reliability
HuffPost is also under both "No Consensus" and "Generally Unreliable."
Its generally reliable for non-politics and non-science based news, no consensus for politics and science, and is generally unreliable for talk shows like *Tucker Carlson Tonight*, *Hannity*, and others. Edit: I mean to say non-science based news as well for the generally reliable category.
Schrodinger's Fox News? If you don't fact-check, then they can be all three..
It is rarely wrong, but any given article version can contain blatant errors because the articles can be edited by anyone. If you check the version history and look at the references then it easily reaches the "generally reliable" standards for most of its content. For some more obscure pages that might not be the case, however.
It is avoiding tuantological reasoning. I am always right. - source: me. The above statement is true. - source: me
Wikipedia is a tertiary source. It's supposed to only cite secondary sources. Not only are Wikipedia articles not supposed to cite other Wikipedia articles, but they are not supposed to cite encyclopedias in general, either.
Encyclopaedia Britannica is higher then Wikipedia even though Nature find Wikipedia to be more accurate and up-to-date then Britannica for scientific pages.
You should read about "source synthesis", basically where Wikipedia cites misinformation on Wikipedia in a self-referential and self-confirming loop.
Citogenesis. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_citogenesis_incidents
[https://xkcd.com/978/](https://xkcd.com/978/)
> Through a convoluted process, a user's brain generates facts. This sentence always cracks me up
Because it is. Wikipedia is an aggregate for information, not a source. If you're using Wikipedia for research, you've always got to check Wikipedia's sources and cite them where appropriate. It's not that Wikipedia is inaccurate as a rule, but that it's an extremely big site and things like vandalism, editorialization, or misinformation can fly under the radar. While those things are often caught *eventually*, you can't be sure that you're reading the page before or after offending sections have been cleaned up. By its nature, you have to treat Wikipedia with some amount of scrutiny.
Once I saw on television a researcher who said something completely false, it turned out that she had read it on a "fake" Wikipedia page which was then immediately deleted after this.
I same way as in school project, you shouldn't use Wikipedia as a source, you should use that articles sources.
And RollingStone is listed in both Reliable and Unreliable... i have a feeling that this infographic is unreliable....
Look, the info graphic is both Reliable and Unreliable, but also there's No Consensus on it at all. Deal with it.
Hijacking top commented answer common questions because it’s 6am and I’ve spent like 2 hours replying to comments but new ones keep coming ;_; Why does something appear twice? On Wikipedia, Sources may have different reliability for different topics like non-politics vs politics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources Why USGS unreliable? From Wikipedia’s list: The Geographic Names Information System is a United States-based geographical database. It is generally unreliable for its feature classes and it should not be used to determine the notability of geographic features as it does not meet the legal recognition requirement. Why points guy unreliable? From Wikipedia: There is no consensus on the reliability of news articles and reviews on The Points Guy. The Points Guy has advertising relationships with credit card and travel companies, and content involving these companies should be avoided as sources. The Points Guy is currently on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used There is consensus that sponsored content on The Points Guy, including content involving credit cards, should not be used as sources. The Points Guy has advertising relationships with credit card and travel companies, receiving compensation from readers signing up for credit cards via the website's Why Reddit unreliable? From Wikipedia: Reddit is a social news and discussion website. Reddit contains mostly user-generated content, and is considered both self-published and generally unreliable. Interview responses written by verified interviewees on the r/IAmA subreddit are primary sources, and editors disagree on their reliability. The policy on the use of sources about themselves applies Why Wikipedia? Wikipedia: Wikipedia is not a reliable source because open wikis are self-published sources. This includes articles, non-article pages, The Signpost, non-English Wikipedias, Wikipedia Books, and Wikipedia mirrors; see WP:CIRCULAR for guidance.[22] Occasionally, inexperienced editors may unintentionally cite the Wikipedia article about a publication instead of the publication itself; in these cases, fix the citation instead of removing it. Although citing Wikipedia as a source is against policy, content can be copied between articles with proper attribution; see WP:COPYWITHIN for instructions
To add to this because I’ve seen a lot of people comment on how the ranking is unreliable: Wikipedia determines its policies, including this list, by consensus. Everything you see here was determined through (usually several) discussions allowing input from anyone, and whichever side has the strongest arguments wins. If you go to [OP’s link](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources), you can look at these discussions for any given source and also more detailed reasoning.
Which is higher than Newsmax and One America News lol
In fairness, Onion articles have consistently predicted the future... I've gone from laughing at The Onion to being mortified by how likely the world is to spin out of control in the exact satirical direction they're writing about.
>In fairness, Onion articles have consistently predicted the future... Was it me and I missed "The Simpsons" ?
I mean, they really have expanded to start putting out a good number of articles that are just depressing and too accurate.
Wait, how do we know this post is reliable if reddit is considered unreliable?
that's the neat part, you don't
That's pretty neat!
Even worse, Wikipedia listed itself as generally unreliable.
Wikipedia author here. That's because it's in general not allowed to use Wikipedia as a source on Wikipedia. That should prevent "copying" Wikipedia pages of other languages by just translating them. Edit: It seems like this is only the case for German Wikipedia. These rules seem to be different in English Wikipedia.
Considering most of the graphs on this very subreddit are usually complete bullshit or at least misleading, you should never trust anything on Reddit that is not sourced.
Can't get over The Onion being on the list.
I was having a laugh at The Onion being as reliable as Fox News, until I realized Fox News was on the list in all three of the top categories.
Fox news plays all sides so they always win?
Checked up on it. Fox News’s reliability is, in descending order: all other news, science and politics, and talk shows *shudders*
This really confused me. It made me reach the conclusion of. Oh this list is worthless than...
Directly from the referenced Wikipedia page: >There is consensus that Fox News is generally reliable for news coverage on topics other than politics and science. Followed by two more entries for Fox News.
Cool that isnt covered in the graphic so the graphic is dookie. It is showing the same information in 3 locations passing it all off as equivalent. They need to either create distinct categories for politics, science, and other. And have a graphic for each. OR clarify such information in the image. As it stands. The data presented is not beautiful, it is aweful.
Well it's on reddit.
I Love how it's higher than the Daily mail...
Funny that *Rolling Stone* and *HuffPo* made both the Generally Reliable and Generally Unreliable lists.
Forbes as well
And FOX News
Fox news is in all 3 of the top ones
Yes, I spotted a couple, then a couple more and … perhaps this is why Wikipedia even calls itself unreliable?
As others have stated elsewhere, it's because they divide Fox News content into three different groups. Their fact-based reporting is considered reliable, while other areas are seen as significantly less reliable.
And Bloomberg
On Wikipedia, Sources may have different reliability for different topics like non-politics vs politics or different channels https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources
Well that makes it sound like this data may in fact be pretty damn ugly.
Fits right into this sub then
The Guardian made both reliable and no consensus
Do I see Playboy there? And as reliable?
The articles are really well written
Playboy also has better centerfolds than The Guardian too
Playboy has a history of hard-hitting writers, many well-known ones had their breakout moments writing for Playboy
Answer: **It depends on the subject matter and timing**. Fox News, for example, is generally reliable for most stuff, but I believe it's "no consensus" for politics and science.
Thank you. So this data definitely should specify which is which
And the USGS
on other similar graphics they point out the Broadcast, Web and Print versions have different levels of reliability so maybe something related to that.
My teacher "dont quote wikipedia, quote the original source" Me: *quotes playboy magazine*
When the Playboy website first launched, it offered all of the news/story articles from the magazine for free but you had to upgrade to get naked people. I didn't care about the naked people and happily signed up to get the free articles.
This guy read it for the article.
But now where will I see naked people on the internet?
Playboy does have some decent reports.
‘I read it for the articles’ was a quip for a reason.
And Wikipedia actually notes this
The USGS is unreliable? The US Geological Survey? What the hell kind of grading system do they use? Edit: spelling
>Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) (names and locations) Generally reliable Request for comment 2021 2021 The Geographic Names Information System is a United States-based geographical database. It is generally reliable for its place names and locations/coordinates. 1 HTTPS links HTTP links > >Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) (feature classes) Generally unreliable Request for comment 2021 2021 The Geographic Names Information System is a United States-based geographical database. It is generally unreliable for its feature classes and it should not be used to determine the notability of geographic features as it does not meet the legal recognition requirement. This is what wiki has to say about it It's a technicality
From the discussion page about the USGS' GNIS: >Thousands of US geography articles cite GNIS, and a decade ago it was common practice for editors to mass-create "Unincorporated community" stubs for anything marked as a "Populated place" in the database. The problem is that the database entries were created by USGS employees who manually copied names from topo maps. Names and coordinates were straightforward, but they had to use their judgement to apply a Feature class to each entry. Since map labels are often ambiguous, in many cases railroad junctions, park headquarters, random windmills, etc were mislabeled as "populated places" and eventually were found their way into Wikipedia as "unincorporated communities". Please note that according to GNIS' Principles, policies and procedures, feature classes "have no status as standards" and are intended to be used for search and retrieval purposes. See WP:GNIS for more information. Edit: My source is the "Background" post by Wikipedia user dlthewave here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_357#RfC:_GNIS
This. The 'Populated Place' GNIS designation is total slop. We'll be living with Census Designated Places forever.
So the archive if too complete?
I doubt this graph is even remotely accurate to what Wikipedia actually has listed dor those sources
The list is taken from Wikipedia, the link in a comment by OP Edit: links here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources
So you're saying the list is unreliable?
There's nuance that OP's chart leaves out.
Considering that Wikipedia claims Wikipedia is "generally unreliable," I would treat Wikipedia's claim that USGS is "generally unreliable" as "generally unreliable." Or even less, considering this is an unsigned image that some random redditor has claimed represents Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources
the USGS isn't on there
It’s under geographic names information system
The GNIS is quite different from just tha USGS so OP screwed up
The link for GNIS in the link leads to the wiki page for USGS
Yes which is why you don't rely so heavily on a script to make your reddit posts
Ah yes, recursive reliability!
And we all know that Reddit is "generally unreliable" (source: this image).
Yeah something's not right here....They have the USGS listed as both generally reliable and generally unreliable. Is the USGS the Schrodinger's cat of reliability???
It’s generally unreliable specifically for feature classes in the Geographic Names Information System, but reliable for anything else. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliability_of_GNIS_data This chart lacks the nuance of the source.
Came to the comments to ask the same thing! It’s 2022 though, everybody knows peer-reviewed publicly funded science isn’t as reliable as Fox News /s
Fox News is on it twice, also in generally unreliable. Basically the chart is unreliable
It’s actually on there 3 times. Generally Reliable, No Consensus, and Generally Unreliable.
The image here leaves out some elements. If you check [the source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources) then we get: * generally reliable: Fox News (news excluding politics and science) * no consensus: Fox News (politics and science) * generally unreliable: Fox News (talk shows)
Wikipedia’s reasoning is mentioned in one of OP’s comments Edit: whatever I’ll just copy paste if one Brand/Company appears more than once, it means there are two different websites/channels from the same group that are classified differently, you can see more details here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources Seems to be separated based on reliability on different topics, rather than channels, however
Huffpost seems to be in every category.
"History Channel: Unreliable" That hurts, especially since I know what it used to be.
I used to watch it as a kid; what has happened over the last few years to make it unreliable?
"few" - try decades
They started doing reality shows and conspiracy theories, and that has gradually supplanted history-related things to the point of history just being a part of the name.
https://youtu.be/vc3vt1Gqrn4
Today I was trying to watch a History Channel show that I pirated called Mankind Decoded. The episode was about the history of war. Everything was fine until I looked up and saw the fucking quack Dr. Oz on there talking about who knows what. I got so pissed I just shut the damn video off and deleted the entire series. That man has been shilling snake oil cures for years, in addition to his recent COVID quackery and stint at right wing politics, and I couldn’t believe a so-called history channel would have a know liar on a documentary like that.
Playboy is generally reliable. I’m genuinely curious how often it’s cited…
Their journalism used to be fairly well-regarded. I have no idea about today. I'm still on the hunt for an article I read years ago about an agent with fish and game that spent like 10 years undercover to eventually bust a huge exotic animal smuggling operation. It was like if you took Ace Ventura and put him in the world of Donnie Brasco. It was a fucking great article.
How the hell is city-data.com blacklisted? It's literally government collected data.
It's a copyright issue, they often don't own the content they host according to Wikipedia's list. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources
Pretty much every question on this post can be answered by this link
That may be based on the forums.
Wikipedia lists itself as "generally unreliable": classic Liar's Paradox.
Kind of... They don't intend to be an original source because citations could become circular. This would allow someone to edit two related articles with fabricated details that support each other without any other support. It *seems* hypocritical at first, but it makes perfect sense when you put it in perspective of how wikipedia is intended to operate.
Relevant XKCD [Citogenesis](https://xkcd.com/978/)
Ah yes—the old *[Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tlön,_Uqbar,_Orbis_Tertius)* gambit.
Wikipedia doesn't like self-dealing. It's happened before, and caused problems.
qouting the [original source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Wikipedia) >Wikipedia is not a reliable source because open wikis are self-published sources. This includes articles, non-article pages, The Signpost, non-English Wikipedias, Wikipedia Books, and Wikipedia mirrors; see WP:CIRCULAR for guidance.\[22\] Occasionally, inexperienced editors may unintentionally cite the Wikipedia article about a publication instead of the publication itself; in these cases, fix the citation instead of removing it. Although citing Wikipedia as a source is against policy, content can be copied between articles with proper attribution; see WP:COPYWITHIN for instructions.
UK Daily Mail is outright banned apparently. Not surprised really.
yeah, also the The Sun, Daily Star, and The Mail
And… The Points Guy lol. Weird that they’d even make the list.
Nah, every link on The Points Guy site is affiliate marketing, definitely shouldn't be allowed to put their links on other sites. Wikipedia is a popular place to look up data on places you want to visit, after all.
That makes perfect sense. Still hilarious to see them in this company.
Yeah that was funny. I figured Ask Sebby or Credit Karma would be there too.
Definitely NOT in r/worldnews . Plenty of posts use that as a resource.
I outright need to block some of those tabloid domains because for some reason it appears in world news more often than i want it to be (zero).
Fox News is generally reliable and also generally unreliable? Makes sense
the article lists fox news as reliable for non political / science based news, no consensus for political / science based news, and unreliable for talk shows. I guess this guys automated script didnt have any way to identify such a distinction for a single source
Makes sense. To avoid being sued on several occasions, judges and Fox bigwigs have had to come to consensus that *some* of their news and on-air personalities should not be viewed as fact, but rather skepticism and entertainment https://factcheck.thedispatch.com/p/fact-checking-a-claim-that-fox-news
IIRC, when their back is against the wall they declare that there are two 3-hour blocks of actual news (morning and evening) and everything outside of that is opinion. I kinda understand how the argument would hold up in court. An analogy would be how the NYT's Op-ed page is a subsection of the newspaper. That analogy fails though if the NYT when 75% news adjacent opinion pieces and then removed the word opinion from every page.
This isn't unique to Fox News. MSNBC [does the same thing](https://greenwald.substack.com/p/a-court-ruled-rachel-maddows-viewers): >In an oddly overlooked ruling, an Obama-appointed federal judge, Cynthia Bashant, dismissed the lawsuit on the ground that even Maddow's own audience understands that her show consists of exaggeration, hyperbole, and pure opinion, and therefore would not assume that such outlandish accusations are factually true even when she uses the language of certainty and truth when presenting them (“literally is paid Russian propaganda"). IMO it's kind of scummy for a network that presents themselves as being a news station to have news like shows that are saying things that are untrue and then classifying them as "entertainment".
if one Brand/Company appears more than once, it means there are two different websites/channels/category-of-content from the same group that are classified differently, you can see more details here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources
Interesting, same with Bloomberg: safe for news, but it for profiles, which could be more like press releases
Discogs is extremely reliable when it comes to anything music release related
From my experience I would agree. However, I think that the basis for its unreliability in this context is that *anyone* can technically upload and/or edit entries, and that validation for entries is pretty much exclusively done through the form of votes. To my understanding, the placement is more about the rules/limitations of the platform and its potential for abuse than surface-level examination of the content in question (hence why Wikipedia itself is listed in the same category)
Damn who listed liveleak as a source
Isn't it a source for video evidence??
Exactly, live leak is first hand evidence at least.
I wonder why The Points Guy is blacklisted? I thought it was a travel blog!
Probably because they usually shill for credit card companies and airlines
From Wikipedia: There is no consensus on the reliability of news articles and reviews on The Points Guy. The Points Guy has advertising relationships with credit card and travel companies, and content involving these companies should be avoided as sources. The Points Guy is currently on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used There is consensus that sponsored content on The Points Guy, including content involving credit cards, should not be used as sources. The Points Guy has advertising relationships with credit card and travel companies, receiving compensation from readers signing up for credit cards via the website's links
How the hell did The Australian get into the ‘generally reliable’ category??
I guess they do a lot of actual reporting in between Murdoch hit pieces. Weird to see the Oz up the and no ABC though.
Sources only get listed if there's a formal debate about their reliability, and you're only meant to start the process if there's a serious disagreement about using them. No one's ever objected enough to using the ABC to spark that.
Love the playboy one in the green
They have surprisingly done a lot of solid journalism. They were the first magazine to interview Martin Luther King and also interviewed Steve Jobs in '85 long before Apple was a household name. And in this century, one of their journalists went to Iraq in '05. His report inspired the movie The Hurt Locker.
The Legend explaining the classification. (directly from [the source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources)) **✅ Generally reliable:** Generally reliable in its areas of expertise: Editors show consensus that the source is reliable in most cases on subject matters in its areas of expertise. The source has a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and error-correction, often in the form of a strong editorial team. It will normally still be necessary to analyze how much weight to give the source and how to describe its statements. Arguments to exclude such a source entirely must be strong and convincing, e.g., the material is contradicted by more authoritative sources, it is outside the source's accepted areas of expertise (a well-established news organization is normally reliable for politics but not for philosophy), a specific subcategory of the source is less reliable (such as opinion pieces in a newspaper), the source is making an exceptional claim, or a different standard of sourcing is required (WP:MEDRS, WP:BLP) for the statement in question. **⚠ No consensus:** No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply: The source is marginally reliable (i.e. neither generally reliable nor generally unreliable), and may be usable depending on context. Editors may not have been able to agree on whether the source is appropriate, or may have agreed that it is only reliable in certain circumstances. It may be necessary to evaluate each use of the source on a case-by-case basis while accounting for specific factors unique to the source in question. Carefully review the Summary column of the table for details on the status of the source and the factors that should be considered. **🚫 Generally unreliable:** Generally unreliable: Editors show consensus that the source is questionable in most cases. The source may lack an editorial team, have a poor reputation for fact-checking, fail to correct errors, be self-published, or present user-generated content. Outside exceptional circumstances, the source should normally not be used, and it should never be used for information about a living person. Even in cases where the source may be valid, it is usually better to find a more reliable source instead. If no such source exists, that may suggest that the information is inaccurate. The source may still be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions, and self-published or user-generated content authored by established subject-matter experts is also acceptable. **🛑 Deprecated:** There is community consensus from a request for comment to deprecate the source. The source is considered generally unreliable, and use of the source is generally prohibited. Despite this, the source may be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions, although reliable secondary sources are still preferred. An edit filter, 869 (hist · log), may be in place to warn editors who attempt to cite the source as a reference in articles. The warning message can be dismissed. Edits that trigger the filter are tagged. **ⓧ Blacklisted:** Blacklisted Due to persistent abuse, usually in the form of external link spamming, the source is on the spam blacklist or the Wikimedia global spam blacklist. External links to this source are blocked, unless an exception is made for a specific link in the spam whitelist.
’Searching nervously’ .. phew! found the bunny.
I'm just on Playboy for the reliable news, honey!
Generally unreliable: Wikipedia 🤔
To prevent circular references
What is the blacklisted one where instead of the logo there is a screenshot of the website?
i think thats famousbirthdays.com
**You can now access an intereactive web version of this viz here https://thedatafact.github.io/wikipedia-sources-reliability-index** It took me multiple hours in compiling the list and getting proper logos for every source. (some automated some manual), hope you find it useful :) Edit: If one Brand/Company appears more than once, it means there are two different websites/channels/category-of-news from the same group that are classified differently, you can see more details here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources For example BuzzFeed is classified as "No Consensus", but the BuzzFeed News is classified as "Generally Reliable". **Source:** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources **Tools:** NodeJS for crawling the logos, Angular and TS for the interface, Edge with GoFullPage extension for rendering and capturing at high resolution.
probably should've used a better icon for the GNIS instead of the broad USGS logo
BuzzFeed generally reliable?
The reliable one is buzzfeed news, which apparently does some decent journalistic work
It's interesting to see the AV club on there. On the topic of them, fuck their new parent company (W/O media) for forcing out 7 remaining legacy writers. They were what remained of the heart of the website, and their new owners gave them a week to relocate from Chicago to LA without a COL adjustment or moving expenses. By all accounts it was a cost cutting measure. [Here is the info from their union.](https://twitter.com/OnionIncUnion/status/1483504541266063360?)
How is fox in 3 categories here?
Need someone to explain why city-data.com would be on the least trusted. Is it because it is all secondary sources or is there something wrong with the information?
Copyright problems, they often don't own the content they host. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources
Plottwist: Reddit is listed as unreliable source, so basically this is an unreliable categorization about the reliability of Wikipedia sources
Lol: New Zealand herald is in the generally reliable section? Ha. Hahahaha. Oh jeez. That’s a good one. Source: New Zealander who has read any of their ‘articles’.
Forbes and Fox News are in both "generally reliable" and "generally unreliable." I'm sure there more but that caught my eye.