Content & Sourcing
Wikipedia's strength lies in its rigorous sourcing standards and content policies. Understanding what sources are acceptable and how to evaluate them is crucial for creating or improving Wikipedia articles that meet the platform's high standards.
Can I use my company's blog or press releases as sources?
Press releases are considered self-published corporate materials and are generally not reliable sources for Wikipedia. Even if a press release is republished—or lightly rewritten—by a reputable outlet, it still reflects the company’s own messaging, not an independent perspective.
On occasion, press releases may be used to confirm simple, uncontroversial facts like specific names or dates. But they cannot be used to support broader claims about success, reputation, or industry influence. For that, Wikipedia requires coverage from independent, third-party sources that offer their own reporting or analysis.
For more on this topic, please consult our How-To Guide on identifying reliable sources.
How can I tell if a source is reliable and independent enough for Wikipedia?
To be usable on Wikipedia, a news article should come from a reputable, well-established publication with a clear editorial process, a history of accuracy, and a willingness to issue corrections. It must be written by a named journalist and should prioritize original reporting over opinion or analysis.
Independence is just as important as reliability. A source is considered independent if it has no financial, personal, or organizational ties to the subject. That means no company blogs, sponsored content, or articles written in collaboration with your brand. Even respected outlets fail this test if the content was produced as part of a paid partnership or closely mirrors your press materials.
In short, Wikipedia favors journalism that decides what to cover on its own terms, not because a company asked or paid for it. The more editorial distance and journalistic rigor a piece shows, the more likely it is to meet Wikipedia's standards.
Can I use podcasts or YouTube as sources on Wikipedia?
Podcasts and YouTube videos are generally not considered reliable sources unless they're produced by established outlets known for their high editorial standards. Content from independent creators—even if popular—typically doesn’t meet Wikipedia's requirements.
Podcast interviews are treated much like press releases: they reflect the subject's own perspective and are presumed unedited. YouTube interviews fall under the same rule. Even produced segments must come from a source already recognized as reliable; otherwise, they're not appropriate for use in Wikipedia articles.
What are some differences between reliable and unreliable sources?
Wikipedia favors sources with a strong track record in the relevant subject area, not just those that are well-known. Reliable sources are typically easy to spot if you know what to look for.
Reliable sources often have:
A named author or byline
A clear publication date
Balanced tone and language
Original reporting or interviews
Cited by other reliable sources
Unreliable sources often show:
No byline or anonymous authorship
Sensational or misleading headlines
Passes along claims without verification
Heavy use of press release content
Opinionated or promotional tone
Some publications fall somewhere in the middle. For example, Rolling Stone is generally reliable for music and culture, but less consistent on topics like politics. Forbes.com includes both staff-reported content (often usable) and contributor blogs (not usable).