User:Syced/Wikipedia Reference Search

Search for references on WRS

WRS is a search engine that is limited to a few hundred higher-quality sources. Examples include nytimes.com or ieee.org for example. As with any search engine, editors must still exercise their own judgment to ensure any specific reference meets the reliability requirements for the intended use. So next time you want to work on an article, you can easily study reliable sources and possibly identify ways to improve the article text based on your search!

WRS can make a reference search very efficient, but it is not a substitute for critical analysis. We are working hard to make sure WRS shows only reliable pages, but search results always contain some irrelevant or unreliable pages. Please identify within the results which page is the best reference for your fact. Not every search result will be a reliable reference in the article you are editing.

What is considered "reliable"?

Last update: July 2024

Rows labeled as "_cse_exclude", are the URL patterns that get excluded from the search.

You are encouraged to refine the list by adding and removing websites. A difficult task is to distinguish between various sub-domains and sections of a website (for instance between news and forum). To add/remove/modify entries, follow the instructions at https://github.com/nicolas-raoul/Wikipedia-Reliable-Sources

See also

• Wikipedia:Advanced source searching#Custom search engines

Appendix

Next steps

1. Scan for more redirects (or dead websites) that need to be updated to final destination
2. Summarize types of sites included (in rough order of reliability)
   1. These custom Google Search engines search mostly generally reliable () perennial sources. It does not include sources rated as no consensus on reliability (or as unreliable) for politics or other topics.
      1. It does not yet filter out op-eds from some sites (unable to filter from all sites).
   2. Sites not rated as a perennial source include members of INN and GIJN that have their own editorial standards. The member outlets with ratings are all generally reliable () perennial sources, giving confidence (for now) that other larger outlets are reliable too.
   3. National public broadcasters rated as editorially independent by State Media Monitor (and have no other notable disputes as to their reliability)
   4. Regional newspapers of record (Chicago Tribune, Seattle Times)
   5. University websites
   6. Museum websites
   7. Databases of primary and secondary sources (government websites, Open Library, etc.)
   8. Niche websites devoted to a specific topic
3. Improve UI to include a link back to this page (e.g. Reliable Source Engine (no paywalls))