Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/X
(Redirected from Wikipedia:WION)
 | This page is an overflow area for new rows destined for the table at WP:RSP. Because the current table has reached certain hard limits of Wikimedia software, these rows cannot be displayed in the live table currently. We saw this problem coming, and we are working on it. Until this issue is resolved, you are welcome to add your new entries to this table, keeping in mind that they will not be visible on the main page just yet, but will be as soon as the problem is resolved. |
| Source | Status (legend) |
Discussions | Use | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| List | Last | Summary | |||
| WION (World is One News) WP:WION 📌 |
|
 2025
|
2025 |
World is One News is an international news broadcaster owned by Zee Media and there is no consensus regarding its reliability. Editors have raised concerns regarding WION's lax editorial standards, churnalism, and misinformation. However, some have argued that WION does produce some good quality articles that might not cover information found in other sourcing. | 1  
|
| Business Insider (AI content) | 
|
2025
|
2024 |
Consistent with several recent decisions our community has made about LLM-generated writing, consensus here is that Wikipedians don't trust it at all. Business Insider claims that humans will review the LLM-generated content, but Wikipedians are remarkably cynical about this. Consensus is that anything published with a disclosure about "Business Insider AI" is (a) generally unreliable and (b) not an indicator of notability at AFD. | |
| Pirate Wires (PW, PirateWires) WP:PIRATEWIRES 📌 |
|
2025
|
2025 |
Per an RfC held in 2025, PW is occasionally noteworthy for its strong libertarian or right-wing commentary on politics, economics, society, and technology as well as interviews conducted directly by a contributor. It does not clearly distinguish between news reporting and opinion. Some of its factual claims have been criticised as obviously false (such as the pseudoscientific promotion of bloodletting for all men and some of its coverage of Wikipedia and Reddit) or borderline antisemitic conspiracy theory (certain coverage of George Soros). Claims are often inflammatory and poorly sourced, with no known fact-checking or correction-publishing process. More reliable sources should generally be used to verify or replace PW as a source of fact. Reliable sources generally treat its assertions as claims, not facts, with the exception of direct quotes from interviews. PW has a conflict of interest when reporting on Peter Thiel. | 1
|
| Avi Loeb (UFOs, xenobiology, galactic astronomy, aeronautics, and system astronomy) |
|
2026
|
2026 |
In a 2026 RfC, there was general consensus among editors that Avi Loeb is not a reliable source, nor a subject matter expert within the meaning of WP:SPS, on topics including UFOs, xenobiology, galactic astronomy, aeronautics, and system astronomy. Editors noted his frequent false claims, misuse of the peer-review process and failure to retract claims in the face of disconfirmatory evidence. A minority of editors felt that his work in these fields was usable, especially his peer-reviewed output. There was no consensus about Loeb's reliability as a source on high-redshift astrophysics and cosmology. | |
| CityPopulation.de |
|
1 2 3 4 5 |
2021 |
CityPopulation.de is a self-published source created by a single person. Editors argue that the website does not have an established reputation for fact-checking, even if its data are usually accurate. As CityPopulation.de gets much of its information from census data, some editors suggest citing the original censuses instead. | 1
|
| UnHerd |
|
1 2 3 | 
2025 |
In the latest RfC, there is consensus that the articles on UnHerd are opeds and subject to WP:RSOPINION. In earlier discussions, there is consensus that UnHerd is generally unreliable for culture war topics. There is no consensus on the overall reliability of UnHerd. | 1
|
| Olympedia |
|
1 2 3 2026
|
2026 |
In a 2026 RfC, there was no consensus on the general reliability of Olympedia. While there was agreement on the general reliability of its sports-related statistics, editors were divided as to the reliability of its biographical data and editorial independence from the International Olympic Committee. | 1
|
| Behindthename.com |
|
2026
|
2026 |
In a 2026 RfC, there was consensus that behindthename.com is a generally unreliable source as a self-published source which contains user-generated content. It has received limited use by other sources as a reference. When entries on the website cite secondary sources, cite those sources instead. | 1
|
| &Asian | 
|
1 2 |
2025 |
&Asian (pronounced "Andasian") is a UK-based online magazine. There is consensus that &Asian is generally reliable for pop culture and reviews. However, editors have raised concerns that some articles read like promotional content that the site may mix opinion with news, so it should be used with caution. Nonetheless, it is considered acceptable for pop culture or any music related coverage. | 1
|
| Marxists Internet Archive (MIA, Marxists.org, Encyclopedia of Marxism) |
|
1 2 3 |
2023 |
The Marxists Internet Archive (MIA) is a website which primarily contains transcriptions of primary sources by notable Marxists and related people. Such pages from the website are subject to WP:PRIMARY. MIA also contains original content written by volunteers, including short summaries and overviews of Marxist topics, which have to be approved by its editorial board to be published. Although Wikipedia editors are divided on its political neutrality, there is a weak consensus that MIA's original content is generally reliable in its subject matter. | 1
|