| Source
|
Status
(legend)
|
Discussions
|
Use
|
| List
|
Last
|
Summary
|
| Mail & Guardian |
gr |
Request for comment 2021 |
2021 |
The Mail & Guardian is a South African newspaper. There is consensus that it is generally reliable. |
<section begin="deprecated"></section>
|
| The Mail on Sunday |
d |
Request for comment 2020 |
2020 |
There is clear and substantial consensus that the Mail on Sunday is generally unreliable, and a slightly narrower consensus that the source should be deprecated. |
<section end="deprecated"></section>
|
| Marquis Who's Who (Who's Who in America) |
gu |
|
2022 |
Marquis Who's Who, including its publication Who's Who in America, is considered generally unreliable. As most of its content is provided by the person concerned, editors generally consider Marquis Who's Who comparable to a self-published source. There is a broad consensus that Marquis Who's Who should not be used to establish notability for article topics. See also: {{pslink|Who's Who (UK)}}. |
|
Mashable (non-sponsored content)
WP:MASHABLE |
nc |
Request for comment 2021 |
2021 |
In a 2021 RfC, editors achieved a consensus that while non-sponsored content from Mashable is generally fine, Mashable tends towards less formal writing and is geared at a particular niche (tech news and pop culture). As such, non-sponsored content should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, especially if the subject matter is outside of Mashable's usual focus. |
|
| Mashable (sponsored content) |
gu |
Request for comment 2021 |
2021 |
In the RfC, editors achieved a consensus that extra attention needs to be paid when it comes to sponsored content, especially ensuring that the content was written by Mashable staff and not the sponsor themselves. |
|
The Mary Sue
WP:THEMARYSUE |
gr |
|
2022 |
There is consensus that The Mary Sue is generally reliable. Most editors consider The Mary Sue biased or opinionated. Opinions should be attributed. |
|
MDPI (Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute)
WP:MDPI |
nc |
|
2021 |
Publications in MDPI journals are considered questionable. Editors have raised concerns about the robustness of MDPI's peer review process and their lack of selectivity in what they publish. Originally placed on Beall's List of predatory open journals in 2014, MDPI was removed from the list in 2015, while applying pressure on Beall's employer. As of early 2024, about 5% of MDPI journals had been rejected by the Norwegian Scientific Index, and another 5% are under review.<ref>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).]</ref> |
|
| MEAWW (Media Entertainment Arts WorldWide) |
gu |
|
2021 |
MEAWW is a tabloid site covering pop culture and the internet. The site often employs clickbait and is considered generally unreliable. |
|
Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC)
WP:MB/FC |
gu |
|
2025 |
There is consensus that Media Bias/Fact Check is generally unreliable, as it is self-published. Editors have questioned the methodology of the site's ratings. |
|
Media Matters for America (MMfA)
WP:MEDIAMATTERS |
nc |
Request for comment 2010 Request for comment 2019 |
2023 |
There is consensus that Media Matters is marginally reliable and that its articles should be evaluated for reliability on a case-by-case basis. As a partisan advocacy group, their statements should be attributed. |
|
Media Research Center (MRC, CNSNews.com, Cybercast News Service, MRCTV, NewsBusters)
WP:MRC |
gu |
Request for comment 2010 Request for comment 2019 Request for comment 2020 |
2020 |
There is consensus that the Media Research Center and its subdivisions (e.g. CNSNews.com, MRCTV, and NewsBusters) are generally unreliable for factual reporting. Some editors believe these sources publish false or fabricated information. As biased or opinionated sources, their statements should be attributed. |
|
Mediaite
WP:MEDIAITE |
nc |
|
2023 |
There is some consensus that Mediaite is only marginally reliable, and should be avoided where better sources are available. Editors consider the source to inappropriately blur news and opinion, and due weight should be considered if no other reliable sources support a given statement. |
|
Medium (website)
WP:MEDIUM |
gu |
Request for comment 2022 |
2022 |
Medium is a blog hosting service. As a self-published source, it is considered generally unreliable and should be avoided unless the author is a subject-matter expert or the blog is used for uncontroversial self-descriptions. Medium should never be used for third-party claims about living persons. A 2022 RfC also found that Cuepoint, Medium's music publication, is marginally reliable, with editors stating that its reliability depends on the qualification of the author. |
|
| Meduza |
gr |
Request for comment 2025 |
2025 |
Meduza is a news outlet run by Russian dissidents. There is consensus that it is generally reliable. |
|
Metacritic (GameRankings)
WP:METACRITIC |
gr |
|
2017 |
Metacritic is considered generally reliable for its review aggregation and its news articles on film, TV, and video games. There is no consensus on whether its blog articles and critic opinion pages are generally reliable for facts. There is consensus that user reviews on Metacritic are generally unreliable, as they are self-published sources. Reviewers tracked by Metacritic are not automatically reliable for their reviews. In December 2019, video game aggregate site GameRankings shut down and merged with Metacritic; GameRankings's content is no longer accessible unless archived.<ref>{{cite web|last=Plunkett|first=Luke|title=RIP Gamerankings.com|url=https://kotaku.com/rip-gamerankings-com-1840250954%7Cwebsite=Kotaku|publisher=G/O Media|accessdate=2019-12-06|date=2019-12-05|df=mdy-all}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=GameRankings Shutting down |url=https://www.gamerankings.com/news.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191204051348/https://www.gamerankings.com/news.html |archive-date=2019-12-04}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://gamasutra.com/view/news/355254/Review_aggregator_site_GameRankings_is_shutting_down.php%7Ctitle=Review aggregator site GameRankings is shutting down |last=McAloon|first=Alissa|work=Gamasutra|date=December 5, 2019|accessdate=December 5, 2019}}</ref> |
|
Metal-experience.com
WP:METALEXPERIENCE |
gu |
Request for comment 2021 |
2021 |
Metal-experience.com was determined to be generally unreliable for factual reporting. |
|
| MetalSucks |
nc |
|
2018 |
MetalSucks is considered usable for its reviews and news articles. Avoid its overly satirical content and exercise caution when MetalSucks is the only source making a statement. |
|
Metro (British newspaper) (UK)
WP:METRO |
gu |
|
2025 |
Daily Mail}} and other British tabloids. Articles published in the print newspaper are considered more reliable than articles published only on the metro.co.uk website. The newspaper articles were previously segregated online via the metro.news domain and are presently tagged under "metro newspaper" at the metro.co.uk domain. |
|
Metro (British newspaper) (UK) (soap operas)
WP:METROSOAPS |
gr |
|
2025 |
There is consensus that the Metro is reliable as a source on soap operas. |
|
Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI)
WP:MEMRI |
nc |
Request for comment 2020 |
2023 |
The reliability of MEMRI is considered to lie between no consensus and generally unreliable. Many editors argue that MEMRI has a history of providing misleading coverage and that the source should be used with caution if at all. |
|
Middle East Monitor (MEMO)
WP:MEMO |
nc |
|
2024 |
There is no consensus over the reliability of Middle East Monitor (MEMO). Previously consensus was established that it is a partisan think tank, with opinions ranging from "sometimes usable with attribution" to "unreliable". |
<section begin="deprecated"></section>
|
MintPress News
WP:MINTPRESS |
d |
Request for comment 2019 |
2025 |
MintPress News was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the site publishes false or fabricated information. |
<section end="deprecated"></section>
|
Le Monde diplomatique
WP:LEMONDEDIPLOMATIQUE |
gr |
|
2018 |
There is consensus that Le Monde diplomatique is generally reliable. Some editors consider Le Monde diplomatique to be a biased and opinionated source. |
|
Mondoweiss
WP:MONDOWEISS |
nc |
Request for comment 2024 |
2024 |
Mondoweiss is a news website operated by the Center for Economic Research and Social Change (CERSC), an advocacy organization. There is no consensus on the reliability of Mondoweiss. Editors consider the site biased or opinionated, and its statements should be attributed. |
|
| Morning Star (British newspaper) (UK) |
nc |
|
2024 |
The Morning Star describes itself as a British "reader-owned co-operative and unique as a lone socialist voice in a sea of corporate media" and has low circulation. There is no consensus on whether the Morning Star engages in factual reporting, and broad consensus that it is a biased and partisan source. All uses of the Morning Star should be attributed. Take care to ensure that content from the Morning Star constitutes due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy. |
|
Mother Jones (magazine) (MoJo)
WP:MOTHERJONES |
gr |
|
2019 |
There is consensus that Mother Jones is generally reliable. Almost all editors consider Mother Jones a biased source, so its statements (particularly on political topics) may need to be attributed. Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article. |
|
MSNBC
WP:MSNBC |
gr |
Request for comment 2020 |
2022 |
There is consensus that MSNBC is generally reliable. Talk show content should be treated as opinion pieces. See also: {{pslink|NBC News}} |
|
| MyLife (Reunion.com) |
gu |
|
2019 |
Due to persistent abuse, MyLife is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. MyLife (formerly known as Reunion.com) is an information broker that publishes user-generated content, and is considered generally unreliable. |
|
The Nation
WP:THENATION |
gr |
|
2022 |
There is consensus that The Nation is generally reliable. In the "About" section of their website, they identify as progressive. Most editors consider The Nation a partisan source whose statements should be attributed. The publication's opinion pieces should be handled with the appropriate guideline. Take care to ensure that content from The Nation constitutes due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy. |
<section begin="deprecated"></section>
|
| National Enquirer |
d |
Request for comment 2019 |
2019 |
The National Enquirer is a supermarket tabloid that is considered generally unreliable. In the 2019 RfC, there was weak consensus to deprecate the National Enquirer as a source, but no consensus to create an edit filter to warn editors against using the publication. |
<section end="deprecated"></section>
|
National Geographic (Nat Geo)
WP:NATGEO |
gr |
|
2023 |
There is consensus that National Geographic is generally reliable. For coverage by National Geographic of fringe topics and ideas, due weight and parity of sources should be considered. |
|
National Post (Postmedia Network)
WP:NATIONALPOST |
gr |
Request for comment 2024 |
2024 |
National Post is considered to be a generally reliable newspaper. |
|
National Review (NR)
WP:NATIONALREVIEW |
nc |
|
2018 |
There is no consensus on the reliability of National Review. Most editors consider National Review a partisan source whose statements should be attributed. The publication's opinion pieces should be handled with the appropriate guideline. Take care to ensure that content from the National Review constitutes due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy. |
|
Natural News (NewsTarget)
WP:NATURALNEWS |
gu |
|
2019 |
Due to persistent abuse, Natural News is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. There is a near-unanimous consensus that the site repeatedly publishes false or fabricated information, including an exceptionally large number of conspiracy theories. |
|
NBC News
WP:NBC |
gr |
|
2024 |
MSNBC}} |
|
The Needle Drop
WP:FANTANO |
nc |
Request for comment 2021 |
2021 |
There is consensus that additional considerations apply when considering whether the use of The Needle Drop as a source is appropriate. There is currently strong consensus that Anthony Fantano's reviews that are published via The Needle Drop are self-published sources. There is currently rough consensus that Fantano is considered to be an established subject-matter expert as it pertains to music reviews and that these reviews may be used in an article as attributed opinion. However, per Wikipedia policy regarding self-published sources, these reviews should never be used as third-party claims about living people. There is also currently a rough consensus that Fantano's reviews do not always constitute due weight and that discretion should be applied on a case-by-case basis when determining if a review from The Needle Drop is appropriate to include in a given article. Articles on the theneedledrop.com website are unreliable due to a lack of an editorial policy. |
|
The New American
WP:NEWAMERICAN |
gu |
|
2016 |
There is consensus that The New American is generally unreliable for factual reporting. Some editors consider it usable for attributed opinions regarding the John Birch Society. |
<section begin="deprecated"></section>
|
| New Eastern Outlook |
d |
Request for comment 2022 |
2022 |
In the 2022 RfC, there is consensus to deprecate New Eastern Outlook. Editors note that it is considered a Russian propaganda outlet by multiple reliable sources, and numerous examples of publishing false content. |
<section end="deprecated"></section>
|
The New Republic
WP:NEWREPUBLIC |
gr |
Request for comment 2020 |
2024 |
There is consensus that The New Republic is generally reliable. Most editors consider The New Republic biased or opinionated. Opinions in the magazine should be attributed. |
|
New York (magazine) (Vulture, The Cut, Grub Street, Daily Intelligencer)
WP:RSPVULTURE |
gr |
|
2021 |
Polygon (pre-2025)}}, {{pslink|The Verge}}, {{pslink|Vox}} |
|
New York Daily News (Illustrated Daily News)
WP:NYDN |
gr |
|
2020 |
Most editors consider the content of New York Daily News articles to be generally reliable, but question the accuracy of its tabloid-style headlines. |
|
New York Post (NY Post, New York Evening Post, Page Six) (excluding entertainment)
WP:NYPOST |
gu |
Request for comment 2020 |
2024 |
This consensus does not apply to the broadsheet publication of the same name, that existed from 1801–1942. |
|
New York Post (NY Post, New York Evening Post, Page Six, Decider) (entertainment)
WP:PAGESIX |
nc |
Request for comment 2024 |
2024 |
There is consensus that the New York Post ({{duses|nypost.com}}) and its sub-publications Decider ({{duses|decider.com}}) and Page Six are considered to be marginally reliable sources for entertainment coverage, including reviews, but should not be used for controversial statements related to living persons. |
|
The New York Times (NYT)
WP:NYTIMES |
gr |
Request for comment 2018 |
2024 |
There is consensus that The New York Times is generally reliable. WP:RSOPINION should be used to evaluate opinion columns, while WP:NEWSBLOG should be used for the blogs on The New York Times<nowiki />'s website. The 2018 RfC cites WP:MEDPOP to establish that popular press sources such as The New York Times should generally not be used to support medical claims. |
|
| The New Yorker |
gr |
|
2011 |
There is consensus that The New Yorker is generally reliable. Editors note the publication's robust fact-checking process. |
|
| The New Zealand Herald (NZ Herald) |
gr |
Request for comment 2021 |
2023 |
There is consensus that The New Zealand Herald is generally reliable. |
<section begin="deprecated"></section>
|
News of the World
WP:NEWSOFTHEWORLD |
d |
Request for comment 2019 |
2021 |
The Sun}}, News of the World should not be used as a reference in most cases aside from about-self usage, and should not be used to determine notability. Some editors consider News of the World usable for uncontroversial film reviews if attribution is provided. News of the World shut down in 2011; website content is no longer accessible unless archived. |
<section end="deprecated"></section>
<section begin="deprecated"></section>
|
| NewsBlaze |
d |
Request for comment 2021 |
2021 |
NewsBlaze was unanimously deprecated by snowball clause consensus in the 2021 RfC. Editors cite NewsBlaze's publication of false and/or fabricated information, conspiracy theories, the site's sourcing practices, and copyright concerns. |
<section end="deprecated"></section>
<section begin="deprecated"></section>
|
NewsBreak (News Break)
WP:NEWSBREAK |
d |
Request for comment 2020 |
2020 |
NewsBreak is a news aggregator that publishes snippets of articles from other sources. In the 2020 RfC, there was consensus to deprecate NewsBreak in favor of the original sources. |
<section end="deprecated"></section>
<section begin="deprecated"></section>
|
NewsFront (website)
WP:NEWSFRONT |
d |
Request for comment 2019 |
2019 |
Due to persistent abuse, NewsFront is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. NewsFront was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed unanimous consensus that the site publishes fake news and Russian propaganda. The use of NewsFront as a reference should be generally prohibited, especially when other sources exist that are more reliable. NewsFront should not be used for determining notability, or used as a secondary source in articles. |
<section end="deprecated"></section>
|
| Newslaundry |
gr |
Request for comment 2020 |
2020 |
There is consensus that Newslaundry is generally reliable. Some editors have expressed concerns regarding possible bias in its political narratives and reporting on rival publications; in cases where this could reasonably apply, attribution is recommended, and sufficient. |
<section begin="deprecated"></section>
|
Newsmax
WP:NEWSMAX |
d |
Request for comment 2020 |
2022 |
Newsmax was deprecated by snowball clause consensus in the November 2020 RfC. Concerns of editors included that Newsmax lacks adherence to journalistic standards, launders propaganda, promulgates misinformation, promotes conspiracy theories and false information for political purposes, and promotes medical misinformation such as COVID-19-related falsehoods, climate change denialism, conspiracy theories, and anti-vaccination propaganda. |
<section end="deprecated"></section>
|
NewsNation (general topics)
WP:NEWSNATION |
gr |
Request for comment 2025 |
2025 |
NewsNation (UFOs, UAPs)}}. |
|
NewsNation (UFOs, UAPs)
WP:UFONATION |
gu |
Request for comment 2025 |
2025 |
There is a consensus that NewsNation is generally unreliable for the topic of UFOs or UAPs. Editors pointed to NewsNation's lead reporter on UFOs, Ross Coulthart, having a well-documented history of promoting conspiracy theories in that topic area. See also: {{pslink|NewsNation (general topics)}}. |
|
| Newsweek (pre-2013) |
gr |
Request for comment 2019 |
2019 |
There is consensus that articles from Newsweek pre-2013 are generally reliable for news covered during that time. In 2011, Newsweek was a reputable magazine with only some minor problems while it was owned by The Newsweek Daily Beast Company (which also owned {{pslink|The Daily Beast}}). Blogs under Newsweek, including The Gaggle, should be handled with the WP:NEWSBLOG policy. See also: Newsweek (2013–present). |
|
Newsweek (2013–present)
WP:NEWSWEEK |
nc |
Request for comment 2019 |
2024 |
Unlike articles before 2013, Newsweek articles since 2013 are not generally reliable. From 2013 to 2018, Newsweek was owned and operated by IBT Media, the parent company of {{pslink|International Business Times}}. IBT Media introduced a number of bad practices to the once reputable magazine and mainly focused on clickbait headlines over quality journalism. Its current relationship with IBT Media is unclear, and Newsweek{{'}}s quality has not returned to its status prior to the 2013 purchase. Many editors have noted that there are several exceptions to this standard, so consensus is to evaluate Newsweek content on a case-by-case basis. In addition, as of April 2024, Newsweek has disclosed that they make use of AI assistance to write articles. See also: {{pslink|Newsweek (pre-2013)}}. |
|
| The Next Web (TNW) |
nc |
|
2019 |
There is no consensus on the reliability of The Next Web. Articles written by contributors may be subject to reduced or no editorial oversight. Avoid using The Next Web's sponsored content. |
|
NGO Monitor (Non-governmental Organization Monitor)
WP:NGOMONITOR |
gu |
Request for comment 2024 |
2024 |
There is a consensus that NGO Monitor is not reliable for facts. Editors agree that, despite attempts to portray itself otherwise, it is an advocacy organization whose primary goal is to attack organizations that disagree with it or with the Israeli government regarding the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Some editors also express concern about past attempts by NGO Monitor staff to manipulate coverage of itself on Wikipedia. |
|
NME (New Musical Express)
WP:RSPNME |
gr |
|
2020 |
There is consensus that British publication NME is generally reliable for content related to its areas of expertise, which include music. |
<section begin="deprecated"></section>
|
NNDB (Notable Names Database)
WP:NNDB |
d |
Request for comment 2019 |
2019 |
NNDB is a biographical database operated by Soylent Communications, the parent company of shock site Rotten.com. It was deprecated in the 2019 RfC. Editors note NNDB's poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, despite the site claiming to have an editorial process. Editors have also found instances of NNDB incorporating content from Wikipedia, which would make the use of the affected pages circular sourcing. |
<section end="deprecated"></section>
|
NPR (National Public Radio)
WP:RSPNPR |
gr |
|
2024 |
There is consensus that NPR, an American public service broadcaster, is generally reliable for news and statements of fact. NPR's opinion pieces should only be used with attribution. |
|
.svg){kind=link}
