This plugin is an excellent resource for determining the general reliability of a news source..
It should be noted though that the plugin does not claim, nor could it reasonably claim to verifiy any news source as 100% reliable.

One further observation, almost every negative review comes from someone who tried to use this to verify their pre-existing assumptions about a news source, and dismisses the validity of the plugin because it does not confirm their existing presumptions - curiously enough the very target audience most biased sources prefer, imagine that.

There is no perfect solution to fake news other than taking personal resposibility for the time and effort requird to verify information. This plugin is simply a tool which can give an indication to how trustworthy a source is likely to be. There are a lot of lazy 1-star reviews from people angry that their most loved or most hated news outlet isn't rated how they want it to be. That is missing the point. I personally disagree with just about everything that is published by the British Tabloid "The Daily Mail" - but it gets a green rating overall and gets 6 out of 9 greens. half of these green ratings are for transparency - for all it's nasty content the mail doesn't hide what it is - it is the rightwing mouthpiece of Viscount Rothermere, a member of the British aristocracy. Whilst the reporting in the daily mail is heavily biased, this is not what newsguard claims to rate.
Furthermore - rather than criticise newsguard for changing the rating for the daily mail from red to green (as they recently did), I admire their openness to change. The mail previously rated less well for openness, probably because when contacted by newsguard originally they weren't forthcoming with the information requested, and deservedly got rated badly for openness. Once the mail made this information available newsguard rightly changed their rating.
I think the most helpful review below is unsurprisingly the most considered one, by concentricbrainwaves. I also agree that having an amber rating would be helpful, and in the case of the daily mail, would probably be appropriate. This is really my only negative - the overall rating is not as useful as it should be and to get genuinely useful ratings you will need to view the details 9-point breakdown. To make the overall rating more useful it should only be possible to get green overall with a higher score than 6/9 - probably 8/9

This plugin looks great! On the other hand, I'm probably not in the target audience, because I've so far been surprised by exactly none of its rankings. I really appreciate the fact that NewsGuard is taking this on, and I'm hoping that more people start using it.

EDIT: I've read a whole bunch of the one-star reviews, and most of them seem to be angry, but most of them are angry about green labels for sites that display bias. I think it's important to note that bias is almost entirely irrelevant to the goal of NewsGuard. NewsGuard doesn't tell you whether sites are biased, just whether they're telling you the truth. This is why Fox news and CNN both get green labels: you may not agree with which stories they choose to carry, but they both generally adhere to accepted standards of journalism: tell the truth, and admit it when you get something wrong.

Thank you for creating this add-on. It will reduce misinformation. DO NOT listen to those who are giving this add-on 1 star.

There are already many one-star reviews for this Add-on, with most of them writing it off as leftwing propaganda or conspiracy. The creators have clearly outlined transparent and objective criteria for judging news-websites, which also can be viewed for each website with a detailed report on how and why the judgement was constructed in an understandable manner. These judgements have nothing to do with political orientation, but are based on general good practice in journalism (proper citation of sources, conflicts of interest and source of money made by website).

There criteria can be very helpful in identifying fake or misleading news as well as propaganda. No contents are blocked, so censorship is not an issue. It is a highly informative application.

helps u fighting lies and fake news. dont forget to use your brain and check information u get.

I see that some people don't understand how news and information sites are rated by Newsguard. Please RTFM. You may not like CNN or FoxNews and each are biased but Newguard is providing detailed data on why, for instance, both of those pass muster. Read it!

Dispite the far right hating it - this is suprisingly useful. There's no accountability in the world and it's led to lies and properganda. This is a great step towards something constructive and works really eligantly.

For sites like YouTube, it could do with going a layer deeper, and start looking at individual users.

brilliant should be mandatory for all browsers and news outlets

Daily Mail? Untrustworthy? Absolutely spot on- thanks.

Works as described, doesn't create issues with browsing, provides useful information as a backup to using your brain to evaluate what you read. This add-on is usable right out of the box without the need to fiddle around setting it up. I especially like that it will show the ratings on links as well as on pages. This add-on does not block anything or prevent you from viewing any link or page, it simply gives you another data point to use when you evaluate a link or page for reliability. More info is always good!

Nice unobtrusive display system with the grading identifier embedded in web searches, facebook posts and in the toolbar. As for its accuracy, it gets Breitbart and Daily Mail spot on as being full of fiction, and the Washington Post, New York Times, Guardian UK and BBC as being pretty reliable sources. Can't argue with that personally. Just a shame the trolls are ahead of the game in rating the app and giving it an undeserved low score.

Must have to protect yourself and your family from lies, hatred and disinformation. It would have been nice to have more customisable features the warning is too small.