To;dr - the article is doesn’t give many examples (see quotes below), but has the link to Wikipedia debate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sou

To;dr - the article is doesn’t give many examples (see quotes below), but has the link to Wikipedia debate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_303#Responses_(Fox_News) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Not.... > Anticipating there might be some pushback at the removal, the editor offered a simple explanation: “Fox News is not enough …” > In an aggressive move that is anything but sitting back, a panel of Wikipedia administrators in July declared that Fox News would no longer be considered “generally reliable” in its reporting on politics and science, and in those areas “should be used with caution to verify contentious claims.” (Fox News articles on other topics were unaffected.) There simply were too many examples of misleading, inaccurate, and slanted reporting about science and politics for Wikipedia to pass on Fox News articles as part of a broader search for the truth. > In Vilenski’s mind, the question didn’t require much heavy thinking: “We don’t have to assume that Fox is acting in good or bad faith—we simply need to assess if we can trust the information being provided. In this case, a lot of users suggested using our policies that it couldn’t be trusted enough to be ‘reliable’ for these two topics.” > The administrators made clear that they weren’t implementing policy on their own, but summarizing what the community believed as reflected in a monthlong debate that involved roughly 100 editors