Our list of preferred news sources
The news sites we trust, rate and read ourselves
We recently received an excellent suggestion for a blog post on Twitter:
We’ve been working with a list of preferred sources as a guide for WikiTribune staff to attribute information to, and since you asked, we’re happy to share it. We’re hoping it’ll be a valuable resource for people seeking accurate news, and anyone who wants to write for or edit WikiTribune. We’ve also updated this piece already to reflect some of your comments and add more sources.
Bear in mind that this is a working document and we’ll grow and change it with the help of the community, but this is how it stands at the time of this blog post. There are many other accurate sites and sources out there and we welcome your suggestions. Right now this is a guide to a diverse staff team from our Launch Editor, Peter Bale, to get consistency in how we attribute information.
WikiTribune editorial sources v1.5
Staff should consider sources from this list as reliable and ethical places. Sources in the first section can be hyperlinked directly, the second section requires description.
Any links or materials from other news sources should be clearly attributed and explained, such as “human rights group Amnesty” or “the U.S. Weather Bureau.”
The list is not exhaustive or final. It is a group of news organisations which are transparent, have large or effective networks and have robust processes or corrections and attribution. We should aim to drill down to the original source which is frequently AP or Reuters. This is not a substitute for our own sourcing and fact-checking. It is an aid to sourcing information on events we may not be able to get to or get information on effectively.
Preferred news sources which do not require specific attribution beyond the hyperlink to the original source.
- Associated Press
- BBC News
- Wikipedia — links to background sources
Sources we’re comfortable linking to for hard news but which require attribution in addition to the hyperlink include:
- New York Times
- Washington Post
- The Financial Times
- Wall Street Journal
- The Economist
- BuzzFeed Investigations
- The New Yorker
- The Guardian
- The Times
[Links to opinion, commentary or editorials on these sites must be distinctly marked and labeled as that to distinguish from hard news reports.]
Sources we believe staff can use with reasonable certainty of quality processes at the publisher:
- Mosaic, Wellcome Trust
- Bureau of Investigative Journalism, London
- The New European, [reporting rather than commentary]
- Caixin, China
- Rappler, Philippines
- Gazeta Wyborcza — Poland
- El Confidencial — Spain
- De Correspondent
- The Intercept, [reporting rather than commentary]
- Center for Investigative Reporting, San Francisco
- Die Zeit, Hamburg
- Süddeutsche Zeitung, Munich
- The Sydney Morning Herald
- South China Morning Post
- El Pais, Spain
- Is it clear they had the information first? If in doubt attribute to original
- Are they putting a spin on an original report from elsewhere?
- Do they have expertise in the area you are sourcing them on?
- Can I more effectively source this material directly myself?