Meta:Cite Unseen
.png) Cite Unseen running on the EN Wikipedia article Citizens United v. FEC | |
| Description | User script that adds iconic indicators to Wikipedia citations |
|---|---|
| Maintainers | SuperHamster, SuperGrey |
| Updated | September 2025 |
| Script location | gitlab.wikimedia.org/kevinpayravi/cite-unseen/-/blob/main/main.js |
| Version control | gitlab.wikimedia.org/kevinpayravi/cite-unseen |
| Phabricator | [1] |
| Skin support | Any |
Cite Unseen is a Wikipedia user script that helps readers quickly perform an initial evaluation of the sources used in a given article. The script adds icons to identified sources that indicate various attributes of the source, based on the linked URL and other metadata. Icons are added based on source type (news, opinion pieces, satire, etc.); influence (government, predatory, sponsored); medium (blogs, books, social media, etc.); and reliability, based on source reliability lists from various language versions of Wikipedia.
Installing
[edit]To enable Cite Unseen on all language versions of Wikipedia:
- Visit your global.js page on Meta: User:<YourUserName>/global.js
If you want to enable Cite Unseen on only a specific language version of Wikipedia:
- Visit your common.js page:
Special:MyPage/common.json your wiki of choice.
On that JS page, copy in the code, then click "Publish changes":
mw.loader.load( '//meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:SuperHamster/CiteUnseen.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript' ); // Backlink: [[m:Meta:Cite Unseen]]
Usage
[edit]_(Dec_2020)_2.png)
- The first source, Business Insider, has been marked as
marginally reliable per Wikipedia's perennial sources list. - The second source, International Business Times, has been marked as
generally unreliable per Wikipedia's perennial sources list. - The third source has been marked as
varied consensus per Wikipedia's perennial sources list. The Guardian may or may not be reliable based on the nature of the article and/or the topic. - The fourth source has been marked as a
news article.
Source categorization
[edit]Once installed, Cite Unseen will automatically analyze and annotate references you come across. When it finds a match in its categorization dataset, it will add a categorical icon (refer to the chart below). You can hover over an icon to get more details about the categorization.
Important points to keep in mind while using Cite Unseen:
- Context matters. Sources that are considered generally unreliable can still have valid use. For example, while we typically avoid citing social media, social media posts may still be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions. And while we typically try to avoid self-published blogs and other user-generated content, they may still be acceptable when authored by established subject-matter experts (see en:WP:SPS for more).
- Evaluate. The point of Cite Unseen is to highlight the nature of sources, and to prompt you to think about potential concerns with a source. Just because a source has a concerning mark does not automatically mean it is being used inappropriately. You should never justify removing or adding a source solely because of information that Cite Unseen provides; you need to do your own homework as well.
- It does not cover everything. There is an endless trove of resources out there, and we can't categorize all of them. You'll find many citations that Cite Unseen won't mark up; this does not indicate anything other than that it either (a) does not fit in an existing category or (b) more commonly, it simply hasn't been categorized.
- It is not always right. Cite Unseen looks at citation types and does string-matching against URLs. While generally successful, it's possible for Cite Unseen to misidentify a source.
- Sometimes reliable sources are hosted on an unreliable site. For example, editors citing a book may link to its listing on Amazon.com, which is classified as generally unreliable. This will cause the citation to be marked as generally unreliable even if the book itself is fine. Situations like these are something to keep in mind while investigating the usage of a source.
- Sometimes reliable sources are hosted on an unreliable site. For example, editors citing a book may link to its listing on Amazon.com, which is classified as
Classifications
[edit]Cite Unseen classifies sources into 19 categories:
| Icon | Description | Code |
|---|---|---|
 |
Advocacy: An organization that is engaged in advocacy (anything from political to civil rights to lobbying). Note that an advocacy group can very well be a reliable source; this indicator serves to note when a source's primary purpose is to advocate for certain positions or policies. The websites in this category predominately come from articles in en:Category:Advocacy groups. | advocacy
|
 |
Books: Books and other similar printed matter. Not an indicator of reliability by itself. | books
|
 |
Blog post: Note that a blog post may be considered reliable as a source on the author themselves, or when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. See en:WP:ABOUTSELF and en:WP:SPS for more information. | blogs
|
 |
User-generated news: News sites that accept articles from the community, such as Examiner.com or Global Voices. | community
|
 |
Editable: Sites that are editable by the public, such as wikis (Wikipedia, Fandom) or some databases (IMDb, Discogs). | editable
|
.svg){kind=icon} |
State media and other government sources. This categorization takes into account the direct editorial control the government has on the source. Some public broadcasters and other outlets in which the state does not exercise tight editorial control (such as PBS in the United States) will not have this icon. | government
|
 |
News: News published in reputable news sources that are generally considered reliable on Wikipedia. | news
|
.svg){kind=icon} |
Opinion piece: Opinion pieces and op-eds. | opinion
|
 |
Predatory journals: Predatory journals and publishers; these sites charge publication fees to authors without checking articles for quality and legitimacy. This list is derived from en:Template:Predatory open access source list. | predatory
|
 |
Press releases | press
|
 |
Satire: Sites that publish satirical articles, such as en:The Onion. | satire
|
 |
Social media: Usually a post from a user on a social media platform. Note that a social media post may be considered reliable as a source on the author themselves, or when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. See en:WP:ABOUTSELF and en:WP:SPS for more information. | social
|
 |
Sponsored: Articles that have been paid for or otherwise sponsored. As an example, see the sponsored section of the en:Seattle Times. Depending on the publication, sponsored content may be produced by a third-party. | sponsored
|
_-_The_Noun_Project.svg) |
Tabloids: Sites that publish celebrity gossip and tabloid journalism (as in the style of largely sensationalist journalism; publications that publish in tabloid format but are otherwise generally reliable and non-sensationalist are not categorized as tabloids). | tabloids
|
_with_screen.svg) |
TV / radio programs: TV and radio programs, which may or may not qualify as news and/or reliable depending on the individual program. | tvPrograms
|
 |
Generally reliable in its areas of expertise: Wikipedia editors show consensus that the source is reliable in most cases on subject matters in its areas of expertise. The source has a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and error-correction, often in the form of a strong editorial team. Domains in this category are derived from perennial sources and WikiProject sources lists from various language versions of Wikipedia. | generallyReliable
|
 |
Marginally reliable: The source is marginally reliable (i.e. neither generally reliable nor unreliable), and may be usable depending on context. Editors may not have been able to agree on whether the source is appropriate, or may have agreed that it is only reliable in certain circumstances. It may be necessary to evaluate each use of the source on a case-by-case basis while accounting for specific factors unique to the source in question. Domains in this category are derived from perennial sources and WikiProject sources lists from various language versions of Wikipedia. | marginallyReliable
|
 |
Generally unreliable: There is community consensus that the source is questionable in most cases. The source may lack an editorial team, have a poor reputation for fact-checking, fail to correct errors, be self-published, or present user-generated content. Outside exceptional circumstances, the source should normally not be used, and it should never be used for information about a living person. Even in cases where the source may be valid, it is usually better to find a more reliable source instead. If no such source exists, that may suggest that the information is inaccurate. The source may still be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions, and self-published or user-generated content authored by established subject-matter experts is also acceptable. Domains in this category are derived from perennial sources and WikiProject sources lists from various language versions of Wikipedia. | generallyUnreliable
|
 |
Deprecated: There is community consensus to deprecate the source. The source is considered [generally unreliable, and use of the source is generally prohibited. Despite this, the source may be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions. Domains in this category are derived from perennial sources and WikiProject sources lists from various language versions of Wikipedia. | deprecated
|
 |
Blacklisted: Per RSP (enwp, zhwp), due to persistent abuse, usually in the form of external link spamming, the source is on the spam blacklist (enwp, zhwp) or the Wikimedia global spam blacklist. | blacklisted
|
 |
Varied reliability: The community's consensus on the reliability of this site depends on one or more factors (for example, Forbes articles by staff are considered generally reliable, while articles by contributors are considered generally unreliable). Domains in this category are derived from perennial sources and WikiProject sources lists from various language versions of Wikipedia. | multi
|
 |
Unknown: This source is not marked by any of the above classifications. We do not display this icon next to citations, but users can filter to only see unknown links. | unknown
|
Filtering dashboard
[edit]Above every reflist that has categorized sources, Cite Unseen will insert a "filtering dashboard" that shows reference counts by category. Clicking on a category will filter the reflist to show only references under that category. Toggling multiple categories will show only references under all the selected categories.
.png)
Category suggestions
[edit].png)
In the header above a reflist, Cite Unseen will inject a "Suggest Categories" link button. Clicking this will display "+" buttons next to each citation.
Clicking a "+" button will open a dialogue where you can select one or more categories you believe the domain should belong to, and add an optional comment. After that, click "Open Edit Form", which will open our suggestions page (Meta talk:Cite Unseen/Suggestions) with your selections and comment pre-filled in the edit form. You can adjust as needed, and then save the page to submit your suggestion.
This feature can be disabled via settings (see next section).
Settings
[edit]In the header above a reflect, Cite Unseen will inject a "Cite Unseen Settings" link button. Clicking on this opens up a dialog where users can change the following settings:
- General settings:
- Show dashboard above reflists
- Show suggestions button
- Categories: Allows you to you toggle which category icons should be displayed
- Ignore domains: Allows you to remove domains from categories
- Additional domains: Allows you to add domains to categories
- Additional URL strings: Allows you to add URL strings (e.g.
/opinion/) to categories
Sources lists
[edit]Cite Unseen's sources lists are maintained here on Meta Wiki, under Meta:Cite Unseen/sources.
Pages with the prefix "Meta:Cite Unseen/sources/":
Adding categorizations
[edit]Editors are welcome to help expand the sources lists. Please consult the documentation at the top of each sources list for details.
Cite Unseen's code references particular revision IDs for each sources list, so changes to the sources list do not immediately go live until reviewed and deployed by our maintainers. (Want to help maintaining the revision IDs directly? Contact one of the maintainers listed at the top.)
Otherwise, editors can also suggest domain categorizations at Meta talk:Cite Unseen/Suggestions. This is recommended for domain categorizations that may be debatable.
Internationalization
[edit]To help with translating the interface to more languages, or fixing a bunch of existing translations, visit Cite Unseen on TranslateWiki.
History
[edit]Cite Unseen was created at CredCon in November 2018, jointly developed by Kevin Payravi (SuperHamster) and Josh Lim (Sky Harbor), with support from the Credibility Coalition and the Knowledge Graph Working Group. The project saw more development at Wikimedia Hackathon 2019 and again at the Media Party hackathon in Buenos Aires where a prototype Arabic version was created.
In 2025, Cite Unseen received a grant from Wikimedia CH to extend Cite Unseen. SuperGrey joined as a maintainer alongside SuperHamster in developing new features and expanding sources lists.
In September 2025, Cite Unseen was promoted to a gadget on Chinese Wikipedia.