User:Aaron Liu/sandbox/RSP Demo/2
Don't let that guy fool ya. Guy is literally Ronald Reagan incarnate. I've heard other crims 'round here go crazy talking about inflation and abortion talking to that guy. My office is that way. What was it you said required a good good jobbing from a chubby-ol' warden like me?
| Source | Status (legend) |
Discussions | Uses | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| List | Last | Summary
| |||
| Al Mayadeen WP:ALMAYADEEN 📌 |
|
 2023
|
2023 |
Al Mayadeen is a Lebanese pan-Arabist news channel. It was deprecated in a 2023 RFC. Some editors believe it publishes lies or misrepresents sources, some describe it as propaganda. | 1  
|
| Alexa Internet | 
|
2022
|
2022 |
Alexa Internet was a web traffic analysis company owned by Amazon and discontinued as of May 2022. There is no consensus on the reliability of Alexa Internet's website rankings. According to Alexa Internet, rankings of low-traffic websites are less reliable than rankings of high-traffic websites, and rankings of 100,000 and above are unreliable. A March 2022 RfC found no consensus on whether citations of Alexa Internet should be removed now that the service is defunct. Due to their instability, Alexa rankings should be excluded from infoboxes. | 1
|
| AllSides WP:ALLSIDES 📌 |
|
2022
|
2023 |
In a 2022 RfC, editors found no consensus on the reliability of AllSides as a whole. A significant minority of users noted that AllSides has been referenced in reliable sources as an accurate source for media bias ratings, while another significant minority argued that its methodology, which is partly based on the opinions of users, makes it unsuitable for Wikipedia. There is general consensus that reliability varies among the website's articles and should be determined on a case-by-case basis; while the high-confidence ratings are generally reliable as they are reviewed carefully by experts, others depend on blind user surveys that some editors consider opinionated and less reliable. | 1
|
| AlterNet | 
|
1 2 3 4 5 |
2019 |
There is consensus that AlterNet is generally unreliable. Editors consider AlterNet a partisan source, and its statements should be attributed. AlterNet's syndicated content should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher, and the citation should preferably point to the original publisher. | 1
|
| Amazon WP:RSPAMAZON 📌 |
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 |
2021 |
User reviews on Amazon are anonymous, self-published, and unverifiable, and should not be used at all.
Amazon is a reliable source for basic information about a work (such as release date, ISBN, etc.), although it is unnecessary to cite Amazon when the work itself may serve as a source for that information (e.g., authors' names and ISBNs). Future release dates may be unreliable. |
|
| Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG, Global Research, globalresearch.ca) | 
|
2019
|
2019 |
Due to persistent abuse, Global Research is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. The Centre for Research on Globalisation is the organization that operates the Global Research website (globalresearch.ca, not to be confused with GlobalSecurity.org). The CRG is considered generally unreliable due to its propagation of conspiracy theories and lack of editorial oversight. It is biased or opinionated, and its content is likely to constitute undue weight. As it often covers fringe material, parity of sources should be considered. | 1 2 3
|
| The American Conservative (TAC) |
|
2019 2020 2021
|
2023 |
The American Conservative is published by the American Ideas Institute, an advocacy organisation. It is a self-identified opinionated source whose factual accuracy was questioned and many editors say that The American Conservative should not be used as a source for facts. There is consensus that opinions sourced to it must always be accompanied with in-text attribution. | 1
|
