Wikipedia:Developing a list of sources that have gained consensus at an article

This is an essay on the reliable sources policy.

It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

Shortcut

WP:CONSOURCE

Sometimes editors working on a contentious topic article or a group of similar articles will find it helpful to develop a list of sources that have gained consensus as being among the best sources for that subject. This is usually the result of a long discussion among multiple editors and may involve discussions of the quality of the sources, such as whether they are in peer-reviewed academic publications and how recently they were published or updated.

The advantages of developing such a list include preventing repetitive arguments over the same sources over several discussions.

Even if such a list is developed, other sources can still be used at that article. Such lists are only lists of sources where consensus has been developed, and lack of inclusion on such a list doesn't imply that any unlisted sources either are, or aren't, usable. Other sources may require discussion to gain consensus that the source can be used for that particular content.

In other cases, a consensus has been formed to not use a given source. In such cases, especially if the reasons for unreliability are not obvious, it may be helpful to subsequent editors if editors post a note about this (e.g., on the article's talk page).

Consensus can change, even about sources; no list should be treated as a finished project. In particular, the quality of periodicals and websites may change significantly over time, so lists may become outdated.

Wikipedia:Developing a list of sources that have gained consensus at an article

Examples

WikiProjects

Individual articles

See also