Re: Credible sources

I think a nuanced example to consider is the New York Post at
Wikipedia:Reliable
sources/Perennial sources#New York Post
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#New_York_Post>
.

Excluding entertainment:


There is consensus the *New York Post* is generally unreliable for factual
reporting, especially with regard to politics, particularly New York City
politics <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_politics>. A tabloid
newspaper <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabloid_journalism>, editors
criticise its lack of concern for fact-checking or corrections, including
examples of outright fabrication. Editors consider the *New York Post* more
reliable before it changed ownership in 1976, and particularly unreliable
for coverage involving the New York City Police Department
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Police_Department>. A 2024 RfC
concluded that the *New York Post* is marginally reliable for entertainment
coverage; see below.

This consensus does not apply to the broadsheet publication of the same
name, that existed from 1801–1942.
Entertainment:
There is consensus that the *New York Post
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Post>* (nypost.com
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search/insource:%22nypost.com%22>
[image:
Links] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:LinkSearch/*.nypost.com> [image:
Spamcheck] <https://spamcheck.toolforge.org/by-domain?q=nypost.com>) and
its sub-publications *Decider
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decider_(website)>* (decider.com
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search/insource:%22decider.com%22>
[image:
Links] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:LinkSearch/*.decider.com> [image:
Spamcheck] <https://spamcheck.toolforge.org/by-domain?q=decider.com>) and *Page
Six <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP>.

The quality of individual newspapers & their reliability of coverage areas
clearly can vary over time. I think it behooves us to reconsider the
reliability of a source as it changes.

Peaceray <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Peaceray>

On Sat, Feb 7, 2026 at 2:50 PM Benjamin Lees via Wikimedia-l <
[email protected]> wrote:

> Hoi, as Andy points out, the English WIkipedia has processes for
> determining source reliability.  Those processes address the fact that
> reliability may change over time as organizations change ownership or
> management, and so formerly reliable sources may ultimately be
> deprecated, or vice versa.  I'm not really clear on what you're saying is
> inadequate about those processes.
>
> Benjamin
>
> On Sat, Feb 7, 2026 at 3:01 PM Gerard Meijssen via Wikimedia-l <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hoi,
>> A follow up thought. When our community finds suspect sources wanting and
>> refuse it as a source for references, we devalue the investments made by
>> moguls and maga. There are valid USAmerican sources and they need as much
>> as we do, a public. A public that is not lied to because its sources are
>> not suspect.
>> Thanks again,
>>       GerardM
>>
>> On Sat, 7 Feb 2026 at 19:53, Gerard Meijssen <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hoi,
>>> It is not about sources being American. It is about the question if they
>>> cover the news. When their source is the US government, it is no longer
>>> acceptable to recognise its information as valid or consider it as one side
>>> in a story.. The result produced is often baloney, particularly when their
>>> proprietor has imprinted its staff to produce output that reflects the
>>> business interests outside of the publication.
>>>
>>> Given that resources from for instance Africa are frowned upon, the
>>> imbalance is glaring. Given that even the notion of considering the quality
>>> from suspect sources is not taken seriously; it is met by bureaucracy, the
>>> question will become to what extent Wikipedia is based on reliable sources.
>>> Thanks,
>>>      GerardM
>>>
>>> On Sat, 7 Feb 2026 at 15:17, Andy Mabbett via Wikimedia-l <
>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 7 Feb 2026 at 08:58, Gerard Meijssen via Wikimedia-l
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > In the past several British papers were no longer considered credible
>>>> sources. Given the dominiation of USAmerican publications by a USAmerican
>>>> government that is known for distorting the truth about everything, it is
>>>> relevant to consider the extent we trust American sources.
>>>>
>>>> We won't deprecate American sources simply because they are American,
>>>> in the same way that we do not deprecate British sources simply
>>>> because they are British.
>>>>
>>>> We already deprecate individual American sources where they are shown
>>>> to be unreliable, for example:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_261#RfC:_National_Enquirer
>>>>
>>>> You—or anyone else—are welcome to raise a similar RfC if you find an
>>>> American—or any—source which is unsuitable.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected],
>>>> guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>>> and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>>>> Public archives at
>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/GKMJU7PYOU5PJXLJ2INZF5ELINAHFBRW/
>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave-RusutVdil2icGmH+5r0DM0B+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines
>> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> Public archives at
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/V7GQ3IBLFETZXFGXXGMMW4LVKHO2XQIW/
>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave-RusutVdil2icGmH+5r0DM0B+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/A5N53ERCAJA2UQHPOIEW47KRYRFYTK5C/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave-RusutVdil2icGmH+5r0DM0B+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/33HIGJX536P3DZ6QD53H5PI6UZPYSYSM/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave-RusutVdil2icGmH+5r0DM0B+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org