Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in source reliability discussions
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Essay on editing Wikipedia
This is an essay on the reliability of sources.
It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.
This page in a nutshell: When discussing source reliability at the reliable sources noticeboard, article talk pages, and elsewhere, arguments should be grounded in the reliable sources guideline; this page highlights some arguments to avoid.
| Wikipedia discussions |
|---|
| Arguments to avoid in |
| Arguments to make |
| Common outcomes |
"Just a vote"
[edit ]- Deprecate IDontTrustAnything (talk) 14:28, 16 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- Generally reliable EverythingIsTrue (talk) 14:28, 16 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Again, polling is not a substitute for discsusion. Consensus is weighted based off of arguments grounded in policy, not based on votes.
Trusted by X
[edit ]- Generally unreliable because the browser extension NewsGuard says so. MythDebunker (talk) 14:28, 16 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- Generally reliable because it is neutral according to Media Bias/Fact Check. TruthSeeker (talk) 14:28, 16 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- Additional considerations apply as it was rated poor by Ad Fontes Media NuancedReader (talk) 14:28, 16 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
News monitoring organizations are unable to assess whether a source complies with all of Wikipedia's policies. A source being rated poorly by multiple organizations is indicative that it is potentially unsuitable for inclusion on Wikipedia, but not always.
Citations on Wikipedia
[edit ]- Generally reliable: It's cited over 1,000 times on Wikipedia. Mainstreamer (talk) 14:28, 16 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- Generally unreliable: It's not cited anywhere on Wikipedia. WhatEvenIsThis (talk) 14:28, 16 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Popularity
[edit ]- Generally reliable: The website's Facebook page has over 1 million likes. You'reFamous (talk) 14:28, 16 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- Generally reliable: The author has over 20 million Instagram followers. CelebrityWatcher (talk) 14:28, 16 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
- Generally unreliable: The book sold less than 100 copies. IDon'tKnowYou (talk) 14:28, 16 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Notability/having a Wikipedia article
[edit ]- Generally reliable since it's notable with its own Wikipedia article. GNG Fan (talk) 14:28, 16 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Opinions about content
[edit ]- Generally unreliable: That site mostly spews trivial information. WhatAMess (talk) 14:28, 16 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]