Reliable Sources: The Backbone of Wikipedia Articles
Reliable sourcing is the backbone of a strong Wikipedia article. Wikipedia’s Reliable Sources (WP:RS) guideline ensures that articles are based on trustworthy, verifiable information. A reliable source is one with a reputation for editorial oversight, fact-checking, and independence, ensuring that content is accurate and neutral. Understanding how Wikipedia evaluates sources—and recognizing common pitfalls—will help brand managers navigate this critical policy effectively.
What Makes a Source Reliable on Wikipedia?
Wikipedia evaluates sources primarily based on the reputation of the publication, but individual stories are still assessed on an article-by-article basis to ensure they meet standards for accuracy and editorial oversight. Even respected publications can publish opinion pieces or unverified reports that are not considered reliable for Wikipedia.
To qualify as reliable, a source must meet several important criteria. The most important of these are:
Editorial Oversight – The source must have professional fact-checking and editorial processes to verify information and maintain accuracy.
Independence – The source should be independent of the subject it covers, meaning it is not self-published or influenced by the entity being written about.
Reputation for Accuracy – A history of publishing well-researched, fact-based reporting strengthens a source's reliability.
Reliable sources include major newspapers (The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal), peer-reviewed journals, industry-leading trade publications, and well-regarded books. On the other hand, sources that lack editorial oversight or independence—such as press releases, self-published blogs, company websites, and promotional materials—are not considered reliable for Wikipedia.
What Are Some Examples of Reliable and Unreliable Sources?
Wikipedia editors maintain a lengthy page memorializing past evaluations of frequently used sources to help determine their reliability, the Perennial Sources Noticeboard. While no source is always right or always wrong, Wikipedia classifies sources into three broad categories based on editorial oversight, accuracy, and independence.
Generally reliable sources are considered trustworthy for factual reporting, but even they have limits. For example, a news report in The New York Times may be reliable for current events but not for scientific conclusions unless it cites experts.
Generally unreliable sources often lack editorial oversight, fact-checking, or a reputation for accuracy, but they can still be used for specific cases—such as verifying that a publication reported a particular viewpoint, even if that viewpoint itself is controversial.
Context-dependent sources require careful evaluation based on the topic. For example, Rolling Stone is widely accepted for entertainment coverage but is not consistently reliable for political reporting. Similarly, Forbes staff articles are often reliable, but its contributor pieces, which lack editorial oversight, are not.
Here are some of the most widely-recognized sources and how Wikipedia views them:
Generally Reliable Sources
The Wall Street Journal
The Washington Post
The New York Times
Time Magazine
Scientific American
Wired
Sky News
Der Spiegel
South China Morning Post
Vanity Fair
Vogue
Vox
Reuters
BBC News
Associated Press
Generally Unreliable Sources
The Daily Mail
Breitbart News
AlterNet
RT
Democracy Now!
The Epoch Times
FindAGrave
Newsmax
The Federalist
TV Tropes
IMDb
PR Newswire
Investopedia
WhatCulture
The Gateway Pundit
No Consensus or Context-Dependent
The Daily Beast
The Daily Mirror
The Daily Telegraph
Fox News
HuffPost
Insider
National Review
Vice Media
TMZ
Us Weekly
Salon
Entrepreneur Magazine
Middle East Monitor
Jezebel
Ballotpedia
How to Evaluate Reliable Sources
Even if your source is from an established publication, not everything meets Wikipedia’s reliability standards. While a source’s overall reputation matters, editors must also evaluate each individual article, video, or report on a case-by-case basis. Here are some key signs to look for when determining whether a source is reliable for Wikipedia:
1. Who Produced It?
Established journalists, scholars, and experts are more credible than anonymous bloggers or contributors.
Forbes Contributor Network articles are not fact-checked like regular Forbes staff articles and are generally considered unreliable.
Pay-for-play articles—where companies or individuals pay for coverage—can appear even in reputable outlets. Sponsored content is not independent and should be treated as promotional.
2. How Was It Published?
Traditional print media is easier to evaluate than online-only sources, as print publications usually follow stricter editorial standards.
Podcasts and YouTube videos are rarely reliable unless produced by reputable organizations (NPR, BBC, etc.). Independent creators, no matter how popular, do not have editorial oversight unless affiliated with a known source.
Local news sources may be useful for verifying details, but often lack in-depth investigative journalism and should not be relied on for major claims without additional corroboration.
3. Is It Fact-Checked?
Opinion pieces, Q&A interviews, and podcast interviews are not fact-checked and should be treated as primary sources. Statements from these should be attributed in-text (e.g., According to [Person], in an interview with [Source]...).
Press releases and corporate blogs are inherently promotional and not considered independent.
Academic peer-reviewed journals are among the most reliable sources, particularly for science, history, and medicine, but most subjects will not have them.
4. What Is the Scope and Depth of Coverage?
A brief mention in an article does not help to establish a topic’s notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage, meaning an article should focus on the topic, not just reference it in passing to help make the case for creating a new article.
Reposting or aggregation (e.g., articles copied from wire services like AP or Reuters) should be cited using the original source.
By considering these factors, you can better determine whether a source meets Wikipedia’s standards.
How to Generate Reliable Sources
Wikipedia doesn’t just require that information be true—it must also be demonstrably significant, meaning it has received independent attention from reliable sources. Even if a fact about your brand is accurate, it won’t be included unless a third-party source has deemed it important enough to cover. To strengthen your Wikipedia presence, focus on earning reliable coverage rather than relying on self-published content or press releases.
Strategies for Strengthening Your Sources
Work with a Publicist or PR Team – Securing coverage in reputable news outlets or trade publications takes strategy. Look at similar companies and what kind of press they receive, then tailor your approach accordingly.
Encourage Independent Coverage – Engage with journalists, analysts, and industry thought leaders who write about your field. Coverage in respected publications carries far more weight than company-issued statements.
Seek Meaningful Recognition – If you want an award to be mentioned on Wikipedia, it’s not enough that you won it—it must be covered in an independent, reliable source. Press releases from the awarding body or your company won’t count.
Diversify Your Sources – A variety of strong sources over time strengthens your credibility and helps show lasting public interest. While most helpful for establishing notability, it also can demonstrate the significance of company accomplishments.
Common Pitfalls to Avoid
Pitching to Unreliable Publications – Before seeking coverage, research a publication’s reputation. If it lacks editorial oversight or is flagged as unreliable on Wikipedia, coverage there won’t help establish credibility.
Relying on One-Time or Superficial Mentions – A passing reference in an article is not the same as significant coverage. Aim for in-depth reporting that discusses your brand in detail.
Assuming All Press is Good Press – Not all media coverage contributes to notability. Opinion blogs, affiliate marketing sites, and low-quality digital outlets often don’t meet Wikipedia’s standards.
By focusing on earning independent, high-quality media coverage, your brand can ensure that the information on Wikipedia is accurate, credible, and lasting.
Need Help Evaluating Your Sources?
Reliable sourcing is the backbone of a strong Wikipedia article. Ensuring your brand’s presence is based on credible, independent sources can make the difference between an article that lasts and one that gets removed.
