Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Encyclopedia.com

This page contains excerpts from RSN archive sections related to "Encyclopedia.com", culled from this search.

Summary

Encyclopeda.com hosts or aggregates content from various sources^[22]^[57]^[210]^[279]^[329] such as The Columbia Encyclopedia^[22], OUP^[232], Contemporary Black Biography^[210], International Directory of Company Histories,^[231] or newspapers.^[57] Reliability is therefore mixed, depending on the reliability of the original source.^[279]

There are questions about whether to source Encyclopeda.com itself, or the source (such as Columbia) from which Encyclopeda.com took the content.^[22]^[210]^[232] Suggestions included using via or retrieved from.^[279] Sometimes the source changes over time, so it may be necessary to cite an archived version.^[279]

Similarity to some content at Answers.com has been noted.^[22]

A side discussion took place about whether the fact that encyclopedia.com has ads affects its reliablity.^[232]

Reliability of original content, vs. content hosted from reliable sources.^[232] The most wide-ranging discussion is in Archive 279.^[279]

Archives

RSN archive excerpts follow. Note that unlinked instances of the string 'encyclopedia.com' have added bolding in the excerpts below, to make it easier to locate them.

Archive 22

Answers.com includes content from 3rd-party publications, including various encyclopedias. Here are two examples.

Do any editors have any experience with the reliability of this hosted content? In other words, can we rely on Answers.com to quote the exact content of the encyclopedias concerned? The encyclopedias themselves are undoubtedly reliable sources. But verifying that what Answers.com hosts is exactly the same as the source given, without additions or deletions, is often a bit tricky. Some of these encyclopedias cost several hundred dollars to buy or are currently unavailable, plus Answers.com does not always make it clear which edition of the encyclopedia it is quoting. Any thoughts? Jayen 466 16:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just discovered this: Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-10-24/Answers.com_partnership. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that many of the articles on Answers.com are based heavily on Wikipedia, if not outright copies of it, I would say no... it is not reliable for our purposes. Blueboar (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as far as answers.com content based on Wikipedia is concerned; that is obviously off limits. But that was not what my question was about. I was asking about content that answers.com specifically marks as taken from encyclopedias published by reputable publishing houses, like the Columbia Encyclopedia (published by Columbia University Press). How should we handle these cases? To see examples, click here and select one of the entries in the Columbia Encyclopedia table of contents page that is displayed. Jayen 466 21:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Well, I did as you suggest and clicked here and then on "Shamash", one of the entries listed, and got what ended up to be a Wikipedia article, if you scroll on down.[1]. So it is confusing. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - - That is normal; an answers.com page lists entries from all affiliated encyclopedias that have an entry on the topic. But each entry listed on the page has a heading that indicates the source the entry is taken from. On this page, one of these, indeed, is Wikipedia. The others on the page in question are the Britannica Concise Encyclopedia, and the Columbia Encyclopedia, whose print or electronic versions would easily qualify as WP:RS. The question is, should we accept these texts reproduced from them as WP:RS, or should we insist that editors consult the print, amazon preview or google books versions? Jayen466 23:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I am beginning to think no. It would not be good to send readers to a page that lists both reliable and unreliable sources, I don't think. The link is not clear enough that you are referring only to the little subsection at the top, which is a very small bit of information compared to the whole page. Would you list the source as answers.com? Or the Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, or what? The link to Highbeam Encyclopedia seems clearer, at least, and not so cluttered with extraneous information. However, I notice that no one has answered your question!—Mattisse (Talk) 01:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I noticed that too! :-)) Cheers, Jayen 466 01:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        What I've done in Henry Sweet now is this. I agree that the Highbeam page is clearer. Answers.com has some sources though that Highbeam does not. Jayen 466 12:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        On the Henry Sweet, I think the footnote reference should state that it is as link to passage from the Concise Oxford Companion to the English Language hosted on encyclopedia.com, as the link below does: The Columbia Encyclopedia article on "Wine", as hosted on encyclopedia.com. It is misleading to suggest that the link goes directly to the Concise Oxford Companion to the English Language page. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Noted and duly amended. Jayen 466 20:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we have a similar situation with the Highbeam Encyclopedia – again, these are not wikis, but reference articles that the site claims are taken from named, reliable sources, many of them by university presses. Jayen 466 21:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the fact that some encyclopedias are both on highbeam AND answers.com allows some crosschecking to be done.

The Columbia Encyclopedia article on "Wine", as hosted on encyclopedia.com

The answers.com page on wine, which also includes the Columbia Encyclopedia article among its entries

Comparing the two versions of the article, they appear to be word-identical. However, encyclopedia.com has a couple of bibliographies (under the "French wine" and "American wine" sections) that answers.com has failed to include, and encyclopedia.com gives the Columbia Encyclopedia edition and publication year, which answers.com does not.

Btw, I know we would not usually be relying primarily on other encyclopedias. However, I have for example cited the Concise Oxford Companion to the English Language and the Columbia Encyclopedia, based on pages at encyclopedia.com, in the article on Henry Sweet, to source biographical details that were not easily available elsewhere. Jayen 466 21:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This question remains essentially unanswered. Is this because there is no answer? —Mattisse (Talk) 04:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would not use Answers.com as a source myself; I would go straight to the original source in question if possible as a best practise, or have someone who has access to the encyclopedia themselves look it up. ThePointblank (talk) 09:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that sources like Answers.com are a good place to do initial background research, but are not reliable for citation on Wikipedia. Blueboar (talk) 14:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, for a preliminary summing-up of input so far, could we say that Highbeam pages quoting a licensed reliable source seem to be fine, as they don't mix it with other content, but that reference citations and links to answers.com should be avoided, as their pages tend to present a mix of reliable and unreliable sources? Jayen466 14:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think with the spirit of the Reliable Sources guidelines, both websites are decent for initial research, but they should not be used as citations within Wikipedia articles. ThePointblank (talk) 20:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that some of the books hosted there cost several hundred dollars and may only be available in larger libraries, I think that would go too far, based on a cost-benefit argument. I would agree though that WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT applies. Jayen 466 20:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you do need to cite content from another encyclopedia and it's hosted on Answers.com, how about using two citations in the footnote? A "cite encyclopedia" for the original source, then "via" or "as reprinted on" and then a "cite web" for Answers.com. I've often cited anthologies this way, so the original journal article and the book both appear in the notes. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I think this would do. Jayen 466 15:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archive 57

Please see George E. Terwilleger. Is that link to encyclopedia.com a reliable source? Woogee (talk) 05:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It provides the archived article from the Dayton Daily News. I'd say yes. I formatted the ref properly. I don't like these kind of articles. Someone just puts it up there because the guy technically passes WP:POLITICIAN, but really doesn't know crap about them. So it's a stub that never gets expanded because the guy is basically not that notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Archive 210

In an article about Frances Cress Welsing a dispute concerning the reliability of encyclopedia.com (specifically this article) has arisen. More specifically K.e.coffman has expessed doubt about its reliability. Since no consensus seems to be forthcoming, I am hereby soliciting third party opinions in the hope of achieving a clear consensus. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 08:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia.com is not the source, merely the host. The actual source is Contemporary Black Biography, a journal published since 1992 by Gale. I'm just being informative - I have no idea if CBB is generally considered reliable, or if the author of this specific article, Alison Carb Sussman, is an expert in the field. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

<facepalm> Thanks. I should have seen that myself. Kleuske (talk) 09:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It should be cited to the original source (Contemporary Black Biography), and the hyperlinked citation marked as "(reprinted on Encyclopedia.com)". Softlavender (talk) 09:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see to it. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 17:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Archive 231

So it turns out that the Reference for Business / Encyclopedia of Business source is mostly an uncredited mirror of this encylopedia.com article, which is apparently a credited copy of an article in something called the International Directory of Company Histories (copyright date 2006). I've never heard of the International Directory of Company Histories but I wouldn't think encyclopedia.com would republish it if it weren't a reliable source? I checked the archive and in the past it seems encyclopedia.com articles were considered to be only as reliable as (and should be credited to if reliable) the sources they cite. I also checked the archives for the International Directory of Company Histories, and the last time it was asked about, the discussion petered out without real consensus. Sorry for the confusion and thanks in advance for opinions on the International Directory of Company Histories as a source. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 17:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Archive 232

Is Encyclopedia.com a reliable source? I'd like to cite this, but there are advertisements, so it doesn't look reliable. If this is a mirror website, could someone please help me find a source website that I could cite? Please ping me when you reply. Thanks!Zigzig20s (talk) 10:12, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Its a tertiary source. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? There are ads, I don't think we can cite it.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:31, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are ads, I don't think we can cite it. Speaking as someone with a slow internet connection who until recently was forced by circumstance to spend a significant amount of wiki-time editing articles related to the entertainment industry that exclusively cite ad-heavy entertainment websites: I wish. Sorry, but commercial websites are no more or less "reliable" for our purposes than websites where there aren't ads. Forgive me if I'm misreading you. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:48, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia.com may be reliable, since its articles often cite their specific sources on any given topic. As an original source, however, it is lacking. According to the Website itself it draws much of its content from posting online previously published material from "credible" printed sources, such as Oxford University Press and Columbia Encyclopedia.

The Donald Pizer article is specifically based on Pizer's entry in Contemporary Authors New Revision Series. It is a published resource containing biographical and bibliographical information "on the world's most-popular authors."

According to the Contemporary Authors entry in Wikipedia, the series started in 1962 and there are biographical entries for at least 120, 000 writers. The work is useful, but the criteria used excludes authors who publish works in languages other than English, and excludes authors who have published their works through vanity presses. So some significant authors may have no entry. The publisher is Gale, a Michigan-based company which specializes in publishing reference works for "public, academic, and school libraries". Gale has changed a number of corporate parents, but the current parent company seems to be Cengage Learning, a Massachusetts-based company which primarily publishes educational material. Dimadick (talk) 11:12, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dimadick: Thanks. I believe I was given an account on Gale by the Wikipedia Library. Would you be able to help me track down the exact URL to cite from please? Pizer needs an article!Zigzig20s (talk) 21:56, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was using the attribution given in Encyclopedia.com. I was not aware Gale had a website. Dimadick (talk) 10:01, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dimadick: Actually, Pizer is not listed in this book, is it?Zigzig20s (talk) 16:09, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether he is listed in the 2014 edition you linked. Encyclopedia.com's website lists a 2009 copyright date for Gale, indicating use of an older version. Dimadick (talk) 16:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it would be useful to expand Donald Pizer.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should I just cite Encyclopedia.com as User:Hijiri88 suggested earlier?Zigzig20s (talk) 17:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Archive 279

Story with Encyclopedia.com? Seems to aggregate sources we'd call reliable. Is it a reliable source? Reliable for content being in the source cited by it? Hyperbolick (talk) 20:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've previously been advised that it's generally reliable dependent on the particular sources used in each article. As it is a tertiary source its a depository of secondary and primary sources some of which are more reliable than others but overall generally reliable, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, good. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by Reliable for content being in the source cited by it? Can you give an example? It does not sound very appropriate.—eric 17:36, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- For example, cited in Sea slug, where their "Sea slug" article is from The Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th ed.; asking whether it is reliable that if Encyclopedia.com states their Sea slug content is from Columbia, that's accurately where it's from. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't see Columbia in the "sea slug" entry on encyclopedia.com. It has content from a Quick Reference[2] of Oxford's World Encyclopedia. The link in the citation does not support the text it is attached to. Neither does the "sea slug" entry in Columbia 6th. This is completely inappropriate.—eric 13:21, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Archived version does have Columbia 6th. Correct after all, but possibly better to use archive link. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:13, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Generally reliable for all purposes per nom. It seems like it's a content aggregator, aggregating content from multiple editorially-controlled sources, so it's an appropriate tertiary source. If, on the other hand, it were like Wikipedia or Everipedia, then it wouldn't be an appropriate source. --Doug Mehus T·C 17:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- but you cite the original work right, and just say "retrieved from encyclopedia.com"? There are also articles which are unusable.—eric 18:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- it depends, if an article is sourced from all reliable sources then it can be cited directly Atlantic306 (talk) 19:51, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Can't always see the original source, if in print but not online. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- One added thought. Bear in mind that just because something is in Encyclopedia.com doesn't mean that it is notable in Wikipedia terms. I would suggest using it only as a supplementary source articles for which notability is demonstrated through other sources. On the other hand, it couldn't hurt to look through their corpus to determine what subjects are covered there that are not covered here, just to make sure that we are not missing anything. BD2412 T 04:33, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is simply not a source, but a web search engine. My very best wishes (talk) 22:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thats wrong, according to their wikipedia article they have articles from many reliable encyclopedias many of which are based completely on reliable sources just as a paper encyclopedia. Some articles are unsuitable but many are good quality and can be used here, each article needs to be assessed individualy as ive been advised before here Atlantic306 (talk) 22:53, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see. In addition to search (which goes outside the source), it also allows browsing like here. Then, it works as an "aggregator/search engine" of articles collected from various other tertiary sources. Still, this not a source itself, but a "source finder". It may be useful to find other sources, but should not be used for in-line referencing itself. My very best wishes (talk) 00:28, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a source per se, but can be used as a link in a source. They aggregate or host content from other sources without modifying it, so citations should be to the source of that aggregation rather than to encyclopedia.com; however, their sources are usually good, so citations to encyclopedia.com should generally be modified to name the original source and just use encyclopedia.com as a courtesy link. I don't feel that encyclopedia.com itself adds weight or reliability beyond what its sources have, which makes me feel like it's a mistake to name it as the source of the citation, albeit a minor mistake in most cases (eg. if they cited a Reddit post for an entry, would we trust that entry? No. Whereas a genuine reliable source could do a story about a Reddit post, and we could cite that.) --Aquillion (talk) 04:55, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I shudder at how much modern "journalism" is done by scouring social media for juicy tidbits. We're not allowed to do that on Wikipedia, but that's all the headlines at CBS news. Elizium23 (talk) 05:29, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ehhhh. This is getting off-topic, but... the reality is that stuff that happens on social media does matter nowadays. And that means it sometimes rises to the point where it belongs in an encyclopedia. Secondary sources likewise have to cover it when it's relevant (thankfully for us.) Like, not everything Donald Trump tweets is relevant, but some of it certainly is. Similarly, while the vast majority of Reddit posts are insignificant, something like that EA post that was the most-downvoted post of all time does say something about how that particular aspect of that particular product was received, and got significant secondary coverage to that end. It's silly to demand that secondary sources rely on only what we would consider WP:RS primary sources, since often the point of a secondary source is to take those things and provide the interpretation and analysis that would be WP:OR if we did it ourselves. That is, we cannot say "this Reddit post being the most downvoted post in history illustrates that EA's position here was really really unpopular", since that would be WP:OR, but it probably is true, and we can and should rely on a secondary source to make that connection. I wouldn't trust something this particular site cited to Reddit because they provide no interpretation or analysis, they just repost stuff - that's why I don't think it's quite right to cite it as the source itself. But if something like the NYT or something does an article on a Reddit post, that's probably a sign that we should actually cover that post through such secondary sources. --Aquillion (talk) 06:37, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

blacklist It looks like they once aggregated content from Columbia but that encyclopedia no longer shows up in their entries ~~(are these all now dead links?)~~. Their recommended citations are incomplete, lacking year and edition and the content in some cases may just be a summary, not all the material in the work. Their terms of service ~~claim copyright on all content and~~ state "solely for your personal use". As a 'courtesy link', maybe if the underlying work is fully cited, but i suspect this is not how it is primary being used(what's a good way to check?) Can you actually link to a specific work? It looks like you only like to their topic overview, with a list of works that can apparently change. Can't be used as a source, as a link within the reference section isn't this most likely to confuse someone who actually wants to go find the source?—eric 15:19, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Blacklisting would seem political. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:29, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Its aggregated content is generally fine as a source. Just cite: eg.: Brennan, Carol. "Archer Alexander c. 1810–1879". In Smith, Jesse Carney (ed.). Notable Black American Men, Book II. Gale. ISBN 9780787664930. Retrieved December 7, 2019 – via Encyclopedia.com. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:25, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I want to cite "automobile rhymes with manchineel" "automobile". Oxford Dictionary of Rhymes. I didn't actually look in Oxford Dictionary of Rhymes. Is that 1st or 2nd edition? I can't link to the correct work, but get redirected to https://www.encyclopedia.com/science-and-technology/technology/technology-terms-and-concepts/automobile and the entry I see is from The Gale Encyclopedia of Science with Oxford way down the list. And if they stop aggregating Oxford publications? How many citations are out there to Columbia Encyclopedia that just link to encyclopedia.com?—eric 18:55, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Does not matter if websites change that is why retrieval information is provided. For stuff you do not know, don't include it. Include in the cite what you do know, and every reader will still has more than enough information to trace the source. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:09, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - And as found above archived versions can be found. Hyperbolick (talk) 00:37, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sure see, eg. https://archive.org/web/ if someone is concerned about that automobile page changing then archive it: https://web.archive.org/save/https://www.encyclopedia.com/science-and-technology/technology/technology-terms-and-concepts/automobile#automobile (but do note, no source has to be online to be a reliable source). Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:58, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Archive 321

Is Tanks Encyclopedia a reliable reference? The "Powered by WordPress" means it's a blog with a domain name. They have authors such as Gareth Lynn Montes and Marisa Belhote who don't appear to have any degreee of expertise in the subject area. FDW777 (talk) 19:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not a source Wikipedia should use, having none of the attributes we look for in a WP:RS. The only thing I think that could somewhat redeem it is if multiple other RS's referred to it in glowing terms. Do they? Alexbrn (talk) 20:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Archive 329

Is this an RS [[3]] for the claim the nazis were not facists?Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The source is RS, but what's the quote from it you are basing the claim on? Boynamedsue (talk) 16:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not, its being used by another user to prove their point we can't call the Nazi's fascist because modern scholarship says they were not.Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What talkpage? Boynamedsue (talk) 16:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NAzi Germany, but its split between three threads, here is the one in question [[4]], its all over the place and is getting a bit hard to follow.Slatersteven (talk) 16:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems it is a collection of works published elsewhere. Thus, a quick googling of the phrase "Fascist and Nazi movements appeared throughout Europe during the period between World Wars I and II" gives this (which is a reliable source). This source speaks about Nazism and Fascism as somewhat different categories, but I didn't find a clear claim that Nazis were not Fascists. I would say it is an original research to say that.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is encyclopedia.com a source at all? I thought they were an encyclopedia collator. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but I think it is supported by the publishers of the original encyclopaedias, so it would be exactly the same level of RS as the volume it cites? In this case it is almost certainly kosher. Boynamedsue (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is it? I don’t see the claim that the Nazis were not fascists in there. I also don’t think the Encyclopedia of European Social History is a WP:RS. What makes you think they are? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, it doesn't support the claim that the nazis weren't fascists, but it does look to be RS. Published by Charles Scribner's Sons, academic contributors. Like I say, looks kosher. Boynamedsue (talk) 18:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah good, that was getting tedious. Also lets have a little sensitivity re Nazis and kosher. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archive 356

This [5] says at the end that it's from "Encyclopedia of Religion". Can someone tell me what Encyclopedia of Religion that is? Is it this one [6] or something less exalted? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:55, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gråbergs Gråa SångYep, it's the one you linked. Actually, there's an article on Italian Wikipedia about it, and you can see his Gardner's name among the authors. Safe to use. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:06, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Szmenderowiecki That's what I was hoping for, thanks! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archive 380

' Jrank.org is cited in over 1,800 articles but its articles have unclear sourcing. Examples: [7] and [8]. Jrank.org looks like a content farm designed to serve up ads, not a reliable source. Amigao (talk) 20:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a tertiary source, so no, I don't think it should be used. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 20:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a search engine/aggregator, which means it is no more reliable than Google or Bing. What it links to may or may not be a reliable source, but it should not be used as a source. Banks Irk (talk) 22:52, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need to place it under formal deprecation, but yeah, the above are correct. This is self-evidently an unreliable source, and you don't need permission to make Wikipedia better by replacing references to it with better sources. --Jayron 32 12:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecate per nom. NotReallyMoniak (talk) 18:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From searching these up it seems to be an mirror of encyclopedia.com, from the given examples there's exact match to [9] and [10] respectively, probably an unauthorized one due to the lack of sourcing... Probably just blacklist this then? Jumpytoo Talk 21:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecate at minimum, as a search engine/mirror site. Curbon7 (talk) 18:26, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not reviving an old discussion: just want to say thanks for catching this one. Altanner1991 (talk) 07:56, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

False positives excluded

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 431#naval-encyclopedia.com