Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources

This project page or section is currently being expanded by an editor. You are welcome to help in expanding too. This template was placed by dotdotcomma (talk · contribs). If this page has not been changed in several days, please remove this template.
This page was last edited by [[User:|]] ([[User talk:|talk]] | contribs) 0 seconds ago.

Contributor note: I brought this over from the enwiki. Please feel free to improve this. The sources list is very short, and can be expanded by incorporating the analyses from other editors on other languages of Wikipedia, especially the enwiki. Thank you all. I think this will be important for us to set the terms for reliability/notability of articles.

This is an information page.

It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, but rather intends to describe some aspect(s) of Wikipedia:Reliable sources guideline. It may reflect varying levels of consensus and vetting.

Shortcuts

Below are some sources whose reliability and use on Wikipedia is often talked about. This list combines past discussions elsewhere on Wikipedia It It is important to understand that context matters, and some sources may or may not be suitable for certain uses depending on the situation.

For example, even bad sources like social media can be used as self-published sources for information about the subject themselves. On the other hand, good sources may not be reliable for information outside their areas of expertise. Even very good sources can make errors.

Be careful with sponsored content, because it is usually unreliable as a source.