Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.
// request.cf · coarse context
A page that knows where it met you.
Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.
Proto-row builder for the Perennial sources project. Invokes a module to read a Lua-fied JSON file containing a parsed version of subtable 5 and dump a couple of fields for each row in the table, and colr the background per the status.
There is clear and substantial consensus that the Mail on Sunday is generally unreliable, and a slightly narrower consensus that the source should be deprecated.
Marquis Who's Who (Who's Who in America)
gu
2022
Marquis Who's Who, including its publication Who's Who in America, is considered generally unreliable. As most of its content is provided by the person concerned, editors generally consider Marquis Who's Who comparable to a self-published source. There is a broad consensus that Marquis Who's Who should not be used to establish notability for article topics. See also: {{pslink|Who's Who (UK)}}.
In a 2021 RfC, editors achieved a consensus that while non-sponsored content from Mashable is generally fine, Mashable tends towards less formal writing and is geared at a particular niche (tech news and pop culture). As such, non-sponsored content should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, especially if the subject matter is outside of Mashable's usual focus.
In the RfC, editors achieved a consensus that extra attention needs to be paid when it comes to sponsored content, especially ensuring that the content was written by Mashable staff and not the sponsor themselves.
There is consensus that The Mary Sue is generally reliable. Most editors consider The Mary Suebiased or opinionated. Opinions should be attributed.
MDPI (Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute) WP:MDPI
nc
2021
Publications in MDPI journals are considered questionable. Editors have raised concerns about the robustness of MDPI's peer review process and their lack of selectivity in what they publish. Originally placed on Beall's List of predatory open journals in 2014, MDPI was removed from the list in 2015, while applying pressure on Beall's employer. As of early 2024, about 5% of MDPI journals had been rejected by the Norwegian Scientific Index, and another 5% are under review.[1]
MEAWW (Media Entertainment Arts WorldWide)
gu
2021
MEAWW is a tabloid site covering pop culture and the internet. The site often employs clickbait and is considered generally unreliable.
There is consensus that Media Bias/Fact Check is generally unreliable, as it is self-published. Editors have questioned the methodology of the site's ratings.
There is consensus that Media Matters is marginally reliable and that its articles should be evaluated for reliability on a case-by-case basis. As a partisan advocacy group, their statements should be attributed.
Media Research Center (MRC, CNSNews.com, Cybercast News Service, MRCTV, NewsBusters) WP:MRC
There is consensus that the Media Research Center and its subdivisions (e.g. CNSNews.com, MRCTV, and NewsBusters) are generally unreliable for factual reporting. Some editors believe these sources publish false or fabricated information. As biased or opinionated sources, their statements should be attributed.
There is some consensus that Mediaite is only marginally reliable, and should be avoided where better sources are available. Editors consider the source to inappropriately blur news and opinion, and due weight should be considered if no other reliable sources support a given statement.
Metacritic is considered generally reliable for its review aggregation and its news articles on film, TV, and video games. There is no consensus on whether its blog articles and critic opinion pages are generally reliable for facts. There is consensus that user reviews on Metacritic are generally unreliable, as they are self-published sources. Reviewers tracked by Metacritic are not automatically reliable for their reviews. In December 2019, video game aggregate site GameRankings shut down and merged with Metacritic; GameRankings's content is no longer accessible unless archived.[2][3][4]
Metal-experience.com was determined to be generally unreliable for factual reporting.
MetalSucks
nc
2018
MetalSucks is considered usable for its reviews and news articles. Avoid its overly satirical content and exercise caution when MetalSucks is the only source making a statement.
Daily Mail}} and other British tabloids. Articles published in the print newspaper are considered more reliable than articles published only on the metro.co.uk website. The newspaper articles were previously segregated online via the metro.news domain and are presently tagged under "metro newspaper" at the metro.co.uk domain.
Metro (British newspaper) (UK) (soap operas) WP:METROSOAPS
gr
2025
There is consensus that the Metro is reliable as a source on soap operas.
Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) WP:MEMRI
The reliability of MEMRI is considered to lie between no consensus and generally unreliable. Many editors argue that MEMRI has a history of providing misleading coverage and that the source should be used with caution if at all.
There is no consensus over the reliability of Middle East Monitor (MEMO). Previously consensus was established that it is a partisan think tank, with opinions ranging from "sometimes usable with attribution" to "unreliable".
There is consensus that Le Monde diplomatique is generally reliable. Some editors consider Le Monde diplomatique to be a biased and opinionated source.
Mondoweiss is a news website operated by the Center for Economic Research and Social Change (CERSC), an advocacy organization. There is no consensus on the reliability of Mondoweiss. Editors consider the site biased or opinionated, and its statements should be attributed.
Morning Star (British newspaper) (UK)
nc
2024
The Morning Star describes itself as a British "reader-owned co-operative and unique as a lone socialist voice in a sea of corporate media" and has low circulation. There is no consensus on whether the Morning Star engages in factual reporting, and broad consensus that it is a biased and partisan source. All uses of the Morning Star should be attributed. Take care to ensure that content from the Morning Star constitutes due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy.
There is consensus that Mother Jones is generally reliable. Almost all editors consider Mother Jones a biased source, so its statements (particularly on political topics) may need to be attributed. Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article.
There is consensus that The Nation is generally reliable. In the "About" section of their website, they identify as progressive. Most editors consider The Nation a partisan source whose statements should be attributed. The publication's opinion pieces should be handled with the appropriate guideline. Take care to ensure that content from The Nation constitutes due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy.
The National Enquirer is a supermarket tabloid that is considered generally unreliable. In the 2019 RfC, there was weak consensus to deprecate the National Enquirer as a source, but no consensus to create an edit filter to warn editors against using the publication.
There is consensus that National Geographic is generally reliable. For coverage by National Geographic of fringe topics and ideas, due weight and parity of sources should be considered.
There is no consensus on the reliability of National Review. Most editors consider National Review a partisan source whose statements should be attributed. The publication's opinion pieces should be handled with the appropriate guideline. Take care to ensure that content from the National Review constitutes due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy.
Due to persistent abuse, Natural News is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. There is a near-unanimous consensus that the site repeatedly publishes false or fabricated information, including an exceptionally large number of conspiracy theories.
There is consensus that additional considerations apply when considering whether the use of The Needle Drop as a source is appropriate. There is currently strong consensus that Anthony Fantano's reviews that are published via The Needle Drop are self-published sources. There is currently rough consensus that Fantano is considered to be an established subject-matter expert as it pertains to music reviews and that these reviews may be used in an article as attributed opinion. However, per Wikipedia policy regarding self-published sources, these reviews should never be used as third-party claims about living people. There is also currently a rough consensus that Fantano's reviews do not always constitute due weight and that discretion should be applied on a case-by-case basis when determining if a review from The Needle Drop is appropriate to include in a given article. Articles on the theneedledrop.com website are unreliable due to a lack of an editorial policy.
There is consensus that The New American is generally unreliable for factual reporting. Some editors consider it usable for attributed opinions regarding the John Birch Society.
In the 2022 RfC, there is consensus to deprecate New Eastern Outlook. Editors note that it is considered a Russian propaganda outlet by multiple reliable sources, and numerous examples of publishing false content.
There is consensus that The New Republic is generally reliable. Most editors consider The New Republicbiased or opinionated. Opinions in the magazine should be attributed.
New York (magazine) (Vulture, The Cut, Grub Street, Daily Intelligencer) WP:RSPVULTURE
There is consensus that the New York Post ({{duses|nypost.com}}) and its sub-publications Decider ({{duses|decider.com}}) and Page Six are considered to be marginally reliable sources for entertainment coverage, including reviews, but should not be used for controversial statements related to living persons.
There is consensus that The New York Times is generally reliable. WP:RSOPINION should be used to evaluate opinion columns, while WP:NEWSBLOG should be used for the blogs on The New York Times's website. The 2018 RfC cites WP:MEDPOP to establish that popular press sources such as The New York Times should generally not be used to support medical claims.
The New Yorker
gr
2011
There is consensus that The New Yorker is generally reliable. Editors note the publication's robust fact-checking process.
The Sun}}, News of the World should not be used as a reference in most cases aside from about-self usage, and should not be used to determine notability. Some editors consider News of the World usable for uncontroversial film reviews if attribution is provided. News of the World shut down in 2011; website content is no longer accessible unless archived.
NewsBlaze was unanimously deprecated by snowball clause consensus in the 2021 RfC. Editors cite NewsBlaze's publication of false and/or fabricated information, conspiracy theories, the site's sourcing practices, and copyright concerns.
NewsBreak is a news aggregator that publishes snippets of articles from other sources. In the 2020 RfC, there was consensus to deprecate NewsBreak in favor of the original sources.
Due to persistent abuse, NewsFront is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, and links must be whitelisted before they can be used. NewsFront was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed unanimous consensus that the site publishes fake news and Russian propaganda. The use of NewsFront as a reference should be generally prohibited, especially when other sources exist that are more reliable. NewsFront should not be used for determining notability, or used as a secondary source in articles.
There is consensus that Newslaundry is generally reliable. Some editors have expressed concerns regarding possible bias in its political narratives and reporting on rival publications; in cases where this could reasonably apply, attribution is recommended, and sufficient.
Newsmax was deprecated by snowball clause consensus in the November 2020 RfC. Concerns of editors included that Newsmax lacks adherence to journalistic standards, launders propaganda, promulgates misinformation, promotes conspiracy theories and false information for political purposes, and promotes medical misinformation such as COVID-19-related falsehoods, climate change denialism, conspiracy theories, and anti-vaccination propaganda.
There is a consensus that NewsNation is generally unreliable for the topic of UFOs or UAPs. Editors pointed to NewsNation's lead reporter on UFOs, Ross Coulthart, having a well-documented history of promoting conspiracy theories in that topic area. See also: {{pslink|NewsNation (general topics)}}.
There is consensus that articles from Newsweek pre-2013 are generally reliable for news covered during that time. In 2011, Newsweek was a reputable magazine with only some minor problems while it was owned by The Newsweek Daily Beast Company (which also owned {{pslink|The Daily Beast}}). Blogs under Newsweek, including The Gaggle, should be handled with the WP:NEWSBLOG policy. See also: Newsweek (2013–present).
Unlike articles before 2013, Newsweek articles since 2013 are not generally reliable. From 2013 to 2018, Newsweek was owned and operated by IBT Media, the parent company of {{pslink|International Business Times}}. IBT Media introduced a number of bad practices to the once reputable magazine and mainly focused on clickbait headlines over quality journalism. Its current relationship with IBT Media is unclear, and Newsweek{{'}}s quality has not returned to its status prior to the 2013 purchase. Many editors have noted that there are several exceptions to this standard, so consensus is to evaluate Newsweek content on a case-by-case basis. In addition, as of April 2024, Newsweek has disclosed that they make use of AI assistance to write articles. See also: {{pslink|Newsweek (pre-2013)}}.
The Next Web (TNW)
nc
2019
There is no consensus on the reliability of The Next Web. Articles written by contributors may be subject to reduced or no editorial oversight. Avoid using The Next Web's sponsored content.
There is a consensus that NGO Monitor is not reliable for facts. Editors agree that, despite attempts to portray itself otherwise, it is an advocacy organization whose primary goal is to attack organizations that disagree with it or with the Israeli government regarding the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Some editors also express concern about past attempts by NGO Monitor staff to manipulate coverage of itself on Wikipedia.
NNDB is a biographical database operated by Soylent Communications, the parent company of shock siteRotten.com. It was deprecated in the 2019 RfC. Editors note NNDB's poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, despite the site claiming to have an editorial process. Editors have also found instances of NNDB incorporating content from Wikipedia, which would make the use of the affected pages circular sourcing.
There is consensus that NPR, an American public service broadcaster, is generally reliable for news and statements of fact. NPR's opinion pieces should only be used with attribution.
Notes
This template incurs a PEIS cost, and is primarily a convenience template for demonstration and testing purposes. Attempts to lower PEIS to the maximum extent should invoke the module directly.
↑See https://kanalregister.hkdir.no/publiseringskanaler/KanalForlagInfo.action?id=26778 (the publisher's summary page) and click on "Vis [+]" in "Assosierte tidsskrift" line to see the list and their ratings. As of February 2024, 13 (5.2%) of the 250 journals listed were rated X (under review) and 11 (4.4%) were rated 0 (unsuitable for scholarly publications, although they do not label them as predatory per se).]
Template documentation
