Reliable sources are the bane of every POV-pusher's existence on Wikipedia, and the love of every Bureaucratic Fuck trying to keep as much human knowledge out of the supposed all-encompassing encyclopedia as they possibly can. When a typical Wikipedophile tries to write an encyclopedia article, they'll have to do so by citing sources. However, since Wikipedia is serious fucking business and that avoiding original research is like a religion to them, not only do they want uncited material removed; they want anything that does not conform with the Zionist media machine out of the encyclopedia as soon as possible, because they want to rewrite history just like they did with the lie that they made up about Hitler killing 6 million Jews.
This means that not only are personal websites not acceptable as sources; tabloid
newsJewspapers and even local news outlets are not regarded as reliable sources, because they haven't been published in the mainstream (with the fishies!) media. This systematic destruction of local knowledge by Wikipedos is a form of cultural genocide perpetrated by those suffering butthurt seeking revenge on the ordinary, innocent people who have done no wrong and are being manipulated, because history is written by the winner and nobody ever cared what the beaker people thought, and they won't care what you were made to think either.
If you are not part of the Cabal, no matter how good your article is, they will shoot you down by claiming that what you have written uses unreliable sources. They will never, ever let your article become a featured article if you use unreliable sources, because on the English Wikipedia the standards are so damned high for featured articles that it is impossible to create one if you are outside a clique elite. However on many non-English Wikipedias, if you'd written the same thing, you'd be able to get a featured article, even if the sources were of somewhat questionable reliability. This, again, is a form of discrimination against native speakers of the English language.
What is a reliable source?
Whilst your website is unreliable, your blog, Facebook or Encyclopedia Dramatica is dismissed as unreliable by elitist cunts, some of the content in the old media is reliable, as long as it isn't targeted towards the working class, because they're ignorant and they don't care if they're being spoonfed lies.
Since Wikipedia is not the news (they have Wikinews for that, lawl) there are a few other types of reliable sources. These include academic papers that have been preferably published in peer-reviewed journals, and books on certain subjects. However if the Wikipedo determines that the source is not NPOV, then they will be deemed unreliable for promoting "fringe theories". This does a great fucking deal to advance "the sum of all human knowledge", because crappy magazine articles published by people paid by the government to numb the thoughts of the masses are instantly seen as reliable, whilst shocking relevations must be kept out for the fragile little minds of the readership.
For example, when a shitty article about lolcats is published in a 'reliable source', that instantly makes the subject 'notable', because the journalists who write that shit are paid to do what would be called original research if someone wrote it on Wikipedia, but since the select few supposedly have control over what people think just because they write for the old media, it becomes a case of these journalists having the power to shape knowledge for the future. And believe us at ED, they won't do it in a good way. Fuck the misnomer 'reliable source', Encyclopedia Dramatica is the only source of truth on the internets. Even 4chan has "The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact." at the top of its /b/ page, and even it contains a whole lot more information than Wikipedia that is actually useful.
Reliable sources is part of a series on
Visit the Wikipedia Portal for complete coverage.