What distinguishes an 'acceptable' source from an 'unacceptable' source in the context of Wikipedia's Verifiability policy?

In the context of Wikipedia's Verifiability policy, an 'acceptable' source is one that is reliable, published, and has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Acceptable sources demonstrate editorial integrity, meaning they have a process for verifying information before publication. They typically include mainstream news organizations, academic journals, books published by reputable publishers, and government reports. These sources are generally considered to be independent of the subject matter, providing a neutral and objective perspective. An 'unacceptable' source, conversely, lacks these qualities. This includes self-published materials, blogs, personal websites, social media posts, and sources with a known history of inaccuracy or bias. Unacceptable sources often lack editorial oversight and are prone to factual errors or subjective opinions. Furthermore, sources that promote conspiracy theories or fringe viewpoints are generally considered unacceptable. For example, a news article from a respected newspaper like 'The New York Times' would be considered an acceptable source, while a blog post from an anonymous individual would typically be deemed unacceptable. The key is the source's reliability and reputation for accuracy, which contributes to the overall trustworthiness of the information presented in a Wikipedia article.