Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources

Is Youtube a Reliable Source

Does any staff member have any idea of YouTube is reliable 173.235.255.87 (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

There are no staff members to answer your question, because Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a volunteer service.

The answer is: It depends on which channel. Obviously, a random person uploading a video of their kids playing is not a reliable source. At the other end of the spectrum, a lot of television news shows put copies of their news on YouTube, and it would be silly to say that the news show is reliable if you watch it on TV but not reliable if you watch the same thing from the same news channel on YouTube. In between those two things, you have to use your best judgment. For example, if a musician makes a video saying why they wrote a particular song, or that they're 25 years old, then that's reliable as an WP:ABOUTSELF statement. But you wouldn't want to use a musician's video saying things about a political candidate or the price of eggs or something like that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:39, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Ah yes, the price of eggs ... it's all a beautiful thing. (Note: not a musician) Martinevans123 (talk) 18:08, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

YouTube isn’t a source itself but a platform the actual source would be the uploader of any of the videos. Also one other thing to be careful of is the possibility of copyright violations since some people do upload content they don’t own the rights to.--65.92.245.71 (talk) 03:40, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

A source like this[1] is definitely an RS because: (1) it is produced by the museum housing the ship in question (2) it is presented by the Director of Research of that museum (3) the presenter has edited, contributed to and written three books which are an RS for the relevant article (4) the presenter is a noted expert in their field, with numerous research papers which are cited by others. I don't think you need me to give examples at the other end of the spectrum. There might be some difficulty in assessing the value of videos in the "shades of grey" area in-between these extremes. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 12:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Negative and anti historical. Pendantic wordless factoids. 159.2.155.63 (talk) 18:08, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

The comments given at WP:RSPYT discourage use of YT for any use, partly because there should be an original text source that is easier/quicker to obtain encyclopedic background. YT sources may be WP:COPYVIO, and are mostly accompanied by margin ads, which are contrary to Wikipedia's no-ad policy. YT also requires higher bandwidth, creating access challenges for users with low-quality Internet service. Best to revert any YT source per RSPYT and find a WP:RS. Zefr (talk) 19:53, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have a no-ad policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:21, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

I suppose "policy" implies a technical definition not specifically included among those at WP:PG. From the Wikimedia FAQ: "Wikipedia is not funded through advertising", which I know you knew that I knew. Zefr (talk) 20:37, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not funded through advertising" sounds nothing at all like "Reliable sources are not allowed to have margin ads", as you know very well. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:41, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

If the margin of a YT source is populated with ads, or the video is interrupted by ads, this would signal to an editor that a better source should be found. Acceptance of a source with ads is acceptance of its advertising, then passed to the next Wikipedia user to wonder about source quality - an avoidable practice.

Is there a discussion or policy revision proposal specifically accepting sources with moderate-heavy margin or in-video advertising? Zefr (talk) 21:26, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

I think advertising is irrelevant to reliability. Remember that newspapers, which we cite extensively, typically have many advertisements. Advertisements are an aspect of the source's financial model, not an aspect of their reliability. Zero^talk 00:48, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

As others have said… YouTube is a hosting service, not a source itself. Most of what is posted to YouTube is unreliable, but some of it is quite reliable. It depends on who posted it. Blueboar (talk) 01:05, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

If the margin of an ordinary daily newspaper is populated with ads – and pretty much all of them are – do you think we should stop using newspapers, because that's a signal to an editor that a better source should be found?

Advertising is not a signal of reliability. Some ad-heavy sites are generally reliable sources, and some ad-free sites are not. The New York Times is full of advertisements; the Scientology website has none. But it's the NYT that's reliable, not the scientologists' website.

AFAIK the only serious discussion about rejecting advertisements is about Wikipedia:External links, and the usual challenge there is to convince zealous editors that when WP:ELNO#EL5 rejects "objectionable amounts of advertising", it does not mean "any advertising at all is objectionable". Even that doesn't come up very often, though. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:24, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

So I had a look at RSP on YouTube. It was marked as a "questionable source" in the early days. Template:Questionable source displays as "Generally unreliable". The initial version linked five previous discussions:

• a video of a politician that was wanted for a direct quotation, because "MSM [mainstream media] censors this"
• a video of guest lecture by an author, talking about the themes in his own work, at a major research university
• a general question of whether clips of ordinary television news reports (CNN and Reuters were given as examples) are acceptable
• a general question, to which editors say things like "very simple" because we accept "the channel of an official news organizations", "perfect examples of when YouTube can be used", etc.
• a video of a speech at a convention, to which editors say things like ""YouTube videos" are not inherently reliable or unreliable as sources, any more than "books" or "TV programmes"", and it turns out that the OP wants YouTube as a whole to be declared unreliable because this one speech "presents commercial activities" (classic case of moving goalposts).

In other words, nothing that could support the designation as WP:GUNREL.

At the time, RSP was using a three-color model: "Good", "No consensus", and "Generally unreliable". I think that in the current model, a more accurate description would be "Additional considerations apply". Specifically, it doesn't matter if it's "YouTube"; it matters whether it's an official channel for an ordinary reliable source vs a self-published video.

The currently highlighted RFC wasn't about the RSP entry; it was about whether to add a Special:AbuseFilter entry to warn editors away from citing it, or to continue relying on User:XLinkBot (which reverts newbies but not experienced editors who add links to YouTube). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:06, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#YouTube is not a source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:23, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Surface Transportation Board

Currently, I'm doing an article for Draft:Grenada District, and I was wondering if the Surface Transportation Board is a good site for sources? https://www.stb.gov/ IC 9612 (talk) 01:53, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

@IC 9612, please ask questions about which sources are reliable for a given article at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:24, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Alright, thank you. IC 9612 (talk) 03:27, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Reliable primary source

DMME.net is a well established authoritive site. Can this obituary https://dmme.net/bobby-tench-departed-for-better-world/ be referenced as from a reliable primary source? Lookinin (talk) 03:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

@Lookinin, please ask questions about which sources are reliable for a given article at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:47, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Dissertations

WP:SCHOLARSHIP used to say:

• Dissertations in progress have not been vetted and are not regarded as published and are thus not reliable sources as a rule.

It was recently changed to say:

• Dissertations in progress are not reliable sources because they have not been vetted and are not regarded as published.

I don't like either of these. Should we maybe say that until they are officially finished and accepted, they should be treated as WP:PREPRINTS? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:41, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree that it should probably be treated as a pre-print rather than asserted to be unpublished. Ifly6 (talk) 20:31, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

An in-process dissertation hasn't been vetted, but it's not even a preprint, as it's not finished. It would surprise me if anyone publishes their in-process dissertation, and if it's not made available to the public, it doesn't pass WP:V, in which case we don't have to ask whether it's an RS. Even if it were posted to a personal website, it's written by someone who probably wouldn't pass EXPERTSPS. It wouldn't surprise me if a section of the work had been presented at a professional conference with a short paper appearing in the conference proceedings, where the work may at least have been vetted by a reviewer. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:46, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

The "not regarded as published" bit caught my eye, because unless you're engaging in WP:SELFCITE or have personal access (e.g., it's your friend's dissertation), then it's WP:Published as far as Wikipedia is concerned.

A lot of PhD candidates, at least in the sciences, have a couple of existing publications, so they probably would pass EXPERTSPS.

And, as you say, individual sections of the dissertation may have been published somewhere, either at a conference or as a journal article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:31, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Where does one even find in-progress dissertations? I have only seen these through private email circulation. Is it common enough to try to use these as references that we even need to specifically warn against doing that? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:47, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't remember the last time I saw a dispute about this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:56, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• The sentence has several problems. "Not regarded as published" suggests we are making an exception to the long-standing-and-long-fought-over wiki-definition of "published", and I think that's a bad idea. The sentence also claims that unreliability follows from non-publication, which is not true. Second, "in progress" is not defined and could have several meanings. It could mean that the student is still busy writing it, or it could mean that the thesis is finished but is still waiting to pass examination. David is correct that few or no theses in progress in the first sense are available to the public. A few in the second category might be available on a student's web page or a preprint server. If we need anything at all, I'd suggest something simple like

  "A thesis which has not passed examination is not considered reliable."

  Zero^talk 06:34, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion unfinished dissertations are private affairs and should not be cited in Wikipedia. A dissertation that is finished and accepted counts in my opinion as a reliable source--it has been read and approved by experts on the dissertation committee. About half of the approved finished PhD dissertations in history are published by Proquest and if you ask at a library you can get a free downloaded copy. I do that and cite them in Wiki footnotes and Further Reading. Also some universities now put all their finished dissertations online for free downloading by anyone. However, the other half get the title listed by Proquest but their contents are not online. They are locked up--no one can purchase a copy. You have to go to its original campus to read it, and that very rarely happens with Wikipedia editors. Off hand I can't recall seeing a single example in a Wiki article in my years here. Rjensen (talk) 01:04, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I've simplified this down to "Unfinished dissertations are generally not reliable sources". Anyone is welcome to argue that this may "generally" be true but the one particular dissertation they want to cite is "specifically" okay. If they've got a good, common-sense argument, they'll get no opposition from me (though I make no promises on behalf of other editors, as everyone has different ideas about what constitutes a good, common-sense argument). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:29, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Reliability marks for typically unreliable sources

I don't if this has been discussed before or if this talk page is the place to do it; I have two typically unreliable blog sources that are proven to be ne reliable. Is there a way to mark them in the article as vetted and confirmed as reliable for future editors. Should I just use hidden text to explain their reliability?
I'm reviewing Nicolinas and I found two blog sources, one of which isn't primary, but speaking with the nominator, we agreed there are reliable. This blog post is written by António Amaro Neves, a local academic who also wrote a book on Nicolinas (the book. The other blog is self-published by Nicolinas Committee, but the page doesn't outwardly show it; so it can be confused for a unaffiliated blog. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 06:33, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Often I will wikilink the author of a blog post as evidence that they are a recognized expert, but if we don't have an article about the author you could leave an html comment in the reference indicating your evidence for reliability. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:47, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

RfC drafting at RSP for platform categorisation

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources regarding re-categorising self-published platforms, along with amending the sections in this guideline Definition of a source and User-generated content. Please note this is not an RfC, this a drafting process for an RfC. The thread is Drafting the RFC question about platforms. CNC (talk) 10:33, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

The place to discuss changes to this guideline is the talk page for this guideline, i.e. here, not WP:RSP. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:05, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Please raise this in the discussion. Location has been discussed at length already. CNC (talk) 17:13, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

No. If they're having a discussion in an inappropriate spot, I'm not going to compound the error by joining it. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:44, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Emphasis on this was already discussed. CNC (talk) 17:48, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Peter, this idea could involve changes to:

• Wikipedia:Verifiability (small)
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources (small)
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources (major)

and probably other pages, too. When a discussion could affect multiple pages, there's no such thing as "the" talk page. There are instead multiple talk pages for multiple pages. (Personally, if this proceeds to an RFC or other decision-making discussion, I think it should be on its own page, like Wikipedia:Verifiability/2012 RfC was.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:17, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

The top of this page says "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Reliable sources page." If there are three pages to change, then three RfCs are okay. That 2012 RfC seems to have been about changes to one page, WP:V, so I fail to see why it could be considered a precedent. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:44, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Having discussions about the same thing on multiple pages is a violation of WP:MULTI and WP:TALKFORK. It's also not a logical thing to do according to common sense. What if the editors at one page decide "Yes" and the editors at the other page say "No"? Then we end up with WP:PGCONFLICT problems. It's much better to have a single centralized discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:48, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes it should be in one place: here. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:37, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Why do you single out this page as the sole acceptable option? Why wouldn't a central page, like Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sources and platforms, be acceptable? We've used that model many, many times. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:18, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Agree… one discussion is better than multiple discussions. It doesn’t much matter where the discussion is held - we can (and should) leave notifications on other related pages pointing to the discussion. Blueboar (talk) 21:40, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

It matters, but now WhatamIdoing is pointing to examples in Wikipedia:Requests for comment rather than WP:RSP. Okay. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:50, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

New essay on genealogy sources

The Teahouse and Help Desk often get questions about genealogy sites like Ancestry.com and Find a Grave.

I have started drafting a guideline (currently tagged as an essay) at Wikipedia:Genealogy sources. Please feel free to chip in. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:57, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Promotional in nature

We say: "Questionable sources are those...that are promotional in nature". However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective.

I wonder if we have a shared understanding of what it means for a source to be "promotional in nature". For example, are the red carpet interviews before the Oscars "promotional in nature"? Is a positive book review "promotional in nature"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:34, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

There is no right answer to this… a lot depends on the “who, what and where” of the source. The key is to ask: is the interview/review independent of the thing being commented on. An interview with someone involved in a film is probably not independent… a gushing book review might be. Blueboar (talk) 15:36, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

So you see it as a question of WP:INDY? Why don't we just say "isn't independent of the subject matter", then? Editors have a shared understanding of what independent means. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:53, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't know that I've ever thought about that phrase, nor do I recall anyone bringing it up in any exchange I've had. (For that matter, I don't recall anyone ever referring to WP:QUESTIONABLE in a discussion.) It looks like "promotional in nature" was introduced in 2009. I'm inclined to think of it as sponsored content (this section wasn't introduced until 2018) + the content that gets excluded as "unduly self-serving" in BLPSELFPUB/ABOUTSELF/SELFSOURCE. So I don't see a strong reason to keep that phrase in light of those sections. The content of Oscar red carpet interviews largely falls under one or the other of those; at least, I think of someone promoting a film they're in as a form of sponsored content. A positive book review would be OK to use, as it doesn't fall in either of those; certainly practice is to pull from both positive and negative book reviews. As an aside, I find it odd that there's a section on questionable sources but not on generally unreliable sources. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:31, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

I suspect that the absence of a "gunrel" section is because that concept was made up by WP:RSP and technically has no basis in policy. The community used to believe what the FAQ says:

Are there sources that are "always reliable" or sources that are "always unreliable"?

No. The reliability of a source is entirely dependent on the context of the situation, and the statement it is being used to support. Some sources are generally better than others, but reliability is always contextual.

– though the difference is largely in principle. In practice, there were always sources that were basically unusable (given that, e.g., so few articles actually need a statement like "A throw-away account on Reddit once said ____"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:59, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Image-hosting websites

Some articles like Super Penguin League use image-hosting websites such as Alamy. Are those absolutely considered unreliable? ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:57, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Like with Youtube, if we know the image uploader is an official account of the entity in question, then that generally can be used as a primary source. If that can't be verified, then no, its not reliable. Masem (t) 15:46, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Alamy is a Stock photography company. The sources in question are the uploader-supplied captions on photos such as this one: https://www.alamy.com/french-american-former-professional-basketball-player-tony-parker-plays-during-a-chinese-variety-show-super-penguin-league-2019-in-shanghai-china-21-september-2019-image409290057.html In this case, it says "French-American former professional basketball player Tony Parker plays during a Chinese variety show Super Penguin League 2019 in Shanghai, China, 21 September 2019. Captions are provided by our contributors" and says the photo (and caption) are "By Stringer - Imaginechina/Sipa Usa". This is not a great source. I'd have to know more about this company to know whether it's an allowable source. I suggest replacing them or tagging them with {{better source needed}}, and if you encounter opposition, please take the question to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:13, 21 September 2025 (UTC)