From Generally Reliable to Blacklisted, you’ll find reviews and discussions for many sites whose reliability is widely debated by Wikipedia editors. And as a bonus, I’ll explain how to tell if a website is used as a source in Wikipedia.
Having helped many companies affected by major algorithm updates over the years, I know that it is sometimes difficult for website owners to objectively review their own website. This is why I recommended conducting user studies toward major core updates. As I said in my post on this topic, objective feedback from real users can sometimes be eye-opening.
The fact is that many website owners not Conduct studies (even after great interest has been shown in them). That’s why it’s great when you come across a resource that serves as a proxy for understanding how others see your website, your content, your business, etc. For example, I’ve written in the past about NewsGuard and how its nutrition labels can serve as a proxy for Google’s quality raters. And this also applies to health and medical sites that try to avoid manual intervention.
If you check a website’s nutrition label, you may discover some interesting insights. For example, does a website publish false content, collect information responsibly, correct errors, avoid misleading headlines, clearly label advertising, and more? These are all excellent things to know about a website when it comes to meeting or exceeding user expectations (that’s what Google is all about).
Well, I accidentally came across another resource that I’m going to cover today, and it comes from a website that millions of people visit regularly – Wikipedia. At the end there is a list maintained by Wikipedia editors that covers this Reliability of sources. As I started browsing the list and reading the editors’ comments, I realized that this would be a great review resource for site owners and SEOs (as they want to improve their sites over time and gather feedback on how others see your content). . Additionally, because this is a living document, reliability scores may change as editors agree on the reliability of a source over time.
The legend:
You can Visit the legend on Wikipedia’s Reliable Sources page to better understand what “ratings” a website may receive. They range from Generally Reliable to No Consensus to Outdated to Blacklisted (and everything in between). Again, this is just another data point when trying to understand how others view your website. And for Wikipedia, this might explain why your site is used as a source or why not…
What happens if your website isn’t listed?
The list doesn’t include all possible websites, so your website may not appear at all. Unfortunately, it is a non-exhaustive list based on sources “whose reliability and usage are widely debated on Wikipedia.” Still, it’s definitely worth taking a look even if your website isn’t listed. It provides an objective view of the reliability of each website from the perspective of Wikipedia editors.
As for the case where a website is not listed, Wikipedia explains that this could be the case if it is a prominent source and does not need to be covered or discussed. Or a website could cover a niche topic or simply fall through the cracks. For niche categories, you may find more information in other specific Wikipedia lists such as this one for video game sites. And here is a larger list of topic-specific lists. And once again checking the reliability values other websites can also be powerful.
In addition, Wikipedia provides a longer list of sources discussed on the topic Source Guide for Side Patrol. This page contains many other sources and is divided into different countries and topics. It is intended as a supplement to the list of reliable sources.
For example, you can find additional resources by topics like science and technology:
Check out the discussion summaries:
Beyond the top level information you can find in the source listWikipedia provides links to the various Discussions about the reliability of this source. So you can read the scenarios in which editors debate the reliability of a source in question. These can be extremely interesting and insightful for the website owners listed. And even if your site isn’t listed, it’s interesting to read why editors rate a site as reliable or unreliable.
The links to the various discussions can be found in the second column of the sources table:
And each link leads to a specific discussion about the reliability of a source:
Tips for Using Wikipedia’s Reliable Sources List as a Website Owner or SEO:
- The most obvious case is to first check whether your website is included in the list and then check the website reliability rating and discussions. You may find some very interesting information based on comments from Wikipedia editors.
- Check other websites in your niche. You may find things that other websites in your niche are doing or have done in the past that you should avoid or emulate.
- Check websites outside your niche to understand why they are considered reliable or unreliable. There are many sources listed between the various sites I covered in my post.
- If a site isn’t on a list, be sure to check it out Niche lists that Wikipedia provides. And don’t forget that Source Guide for Side Patrol Broken down by country and topic.
- Then check where specific websites are cited as sources in Wikipedia. This can also lead to interesting insights about the content cited, the authors who write that content, and more. And if you’re wondering how to see where sites are cited as sources on Wikipedia, check out the bonus section below. 🙂 🙂
Bonus: How to find out when a website is cited as a source on Wikipedia:
Finally, if you want to know where a website is cited as a source on Wikipedia, go to Wikipedia search and Use the insource command. You can specify a domain name, a subdomain, a directory or even a URL there.
And here the Search Engine Roundtable is quoted:
Summary: How reliable is your website?
When auditing a website that is heavily impacted by a major algorithm update, hearing from an objective third party can be an eye-opening experience. In addition to conducting a user study, you can find several resources that can serve as proxies for Google’s quality raters. With Wikipedia’s authoritative list of sources, you can quickly understand what rating a site receives, view discussions about the site’s reliability, and then find out where the site has been cited as a source. All of this can help website owners better understand how their content is viewed by others.
GG