{{Short description|Source reliability rating on Wikipedia}} {{Use dmy dates|date=May 2025}} {{Use American English|date=August 2025}} {{Redirect|Reliable sources/Perennial sources|the list itself|Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources|selfref=yes}} [[File:Screenshot of Wikipedia Reliable sources Perennial sources 1.png|thumb|A screenshot of the top of the perennial sources list (that was in effect on 21 May 2025) when sorted by the default order of the name of the source, with colors corresponding to the status of each source]] The '''perennial sources list'''{{efn|The full title of the page is "Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources".<ref>{{cite web |last1=Merid |first1=Feven |title=Wikipedia's Reluctant Resisters |url=https://www.cjr.org/the_new_gatekeepers/wikipedia-reluctant-resisters-musk-trump.php |website=Columbia Journalism Review |access-date=3 June 2025 |date=13 March 2025 |archive-date=1 May 2025 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250501012955/https://www.cjr.org/the_new_gatekeepers/wikipedia-reluctant-resisters-musk-trump.php |url-status=live }}</ref>}} (abbreviated as '''RSP''' for "reliable sources/perennial" or in shortcut form, '''WP:RSP''') is a community-maintained list on the English Wikipedia that classifies sources by degrees of reliability.<ref name="Lawrence-2024">{{cite journal |last1=Lawrence |first1=Amanda |last2=van Wanrooy |first2=Brigid |title=Sourcing public policy: organisation publishing in Wikipedia |journal=New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia |date=1 October 2024 |volume=30 |issue=3–4 |pages=181–200 |doi=10.1080/13614568.2024.2343845 |doi-access=free |publisher=Taylor & Francis |bibcode=2024NRvHM..30..181L |issn=1361-4568 }}</ref><ref name="Talbot-2025">{{Cite magazine |last=Talbot |first=Margaret |date=4 March 2025 |title=Elon Musk Also Has a Problem with Wikipedia |url=https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-lede/elon-musk-also-has-a-problem-with-wikipedia |access-date=3 May 2025 |magazine=The New Yorker |issn=0028-792X |archive-date=1 May 2025 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250501012933/https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-lede/elon-musk-also-has-a-problem-with-wikipedia |url-status=live }}</ref> It was established in 2018.<ref name="Dzieza-2025" /> The ratings, which are determined through public discussion and consensus, have received significant news coverage.<ref name="Bandler-2024">{{Cite web |last=Bandler |first=Aaron |date=21 June 2024 |title=Wikipedia Editors Label ADL Only Reliable for Antisemitism When 'Israel and Zionism Are Not Concerned' |url=https://jewishjournal.com/news/united-states/372532/wikipedia-editors-label-adl-only-reliable-for-antisemitism-when-israel-and-zionism-are-not-concerned/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240622020506/https://jewishjournal.com/news/united-states/372532/wikipedia-editors-label-adl-only-reliable-for-antisemitism-when-israel-and-zionism-are-not-concerned/ |archive-date=22 June 2024 |access-date=3 May 2025 |website=Jewish Journal}}</ref><ref name="Harrison-2021">{{Cite news |last=Harrison |first=Stephen |date=1 July 2021 |title=Wikipedia's War on the Daily Mail |url=https://slate.com/technology/2021/07/wikipedia-daily-mail-generally-unreliable.html |access-date=3 May 2025 |work=Slate |issn=1091-2339 |archive-date=1 July 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210701131014/https://slate.com/technology/2021/07/wikipedia-daily-mail-generally-unreliable.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="Breslow-2022" />
Ratings on the list are not meant to function as "pre-approved sources" that may always be used without regard for the ordinary rules of editing, nor is the list a "list of banned sources" that may never be used or should be removed on sight.<ref name="Harrison-2021" /><ref name="Talbot-2025" />
== Contents == The perennial sources list catalogs sources under five categories:
* '''Generally reliable''': These sources must be "independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".<ref name="Lawrence-2024" /> Examples include: ** News channels such as CNN, MS NOW,<ref name="Breslow-2022" /> and Al Jazeera<ref name="Deutch-2024" /> ** Traditional newspapers such as ''The New York Times'', ''The Washington Post'', ''The Wall Street Journal'',<ref name="Harrison-2021"/> ''The Daily Telegraph'',<ref>{{Cite news |last=Norton |first=Jim |date=2024-11-27 |title='Wikipedia is as biased as the BBC': How the Left took over the platform |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/11/27/wikipedia-biased-bbc-how-left-took-platform/ |access-date=2025-05-29 |work=The Telegraph |issn=0307-1235 |quote=In Wiki's traffic-light system of sources, it is coded red for 'generally unreliable'; ''The Telegraph'' is coded green for 'generally reliable'. |archive-date=19 March 2025 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250319014015/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/11/27/wikipedia-biased-bbc-how-left-took-platform/ |url-status=live }}</ref> ''The Times'' and its sister paper ''The Sunday Times'',<ref name="Hurley-2025">{{Cite news |last=Hurley |first=Bevan |date=6 February 2025 |title=Wikipedia accused of blacklisting conservative US media |url=https://www.thetimes.com/us/news-today/article/wikipedia-blacklist-sources-websites-rltf92jlx |access-date=3 May 2025 |work=The Times}}</ref> ''The Guardian,'' and ''The Nation''<ref name="Bandler-2024"/> ** Non-news outlets, such as the Southern Poverty Law Center and Amnesty International<ref name="Deutch-2024">{{Cite web|url=https://jewishinsider.com/2024/06/wikipediai-israeli-palestinian-conflict-zionism-adl-encyclopedia/|title=Inside the war over Israel at Wikipedia|date=26 June 2024|website=Jewish Insider|last=Deutch|first=Gabby|access-date=11 May 2025|archive-date=19 September 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240919042704/https://jewishinsider.com/2024/06/wikipediai-israeli-palestinian-conflict-zionism-adl-encyclopedia/|url-status=live}}</ref> * '''Marginally reliable''': Sources categorized as having "no consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply" with regard to reliability.<ref name="Breslow-2022" /> Examples include ''National Review'', ''Jezebel,'' and ''Salon.com''.<ref name="Breslow-2022" /> * '''Generally unreliable''': Sources that "should normally not be used" and "should never be used for information about a living person".<ref name="Elia-Shalev-2024" /> Examples include: ** ''The Daily Wire'',<ref name="Breslow-2022" /> ''The Federalist'',<ref name="Gucia-2025" /> ''The Post Millennial'',<ref>{{Cite web |last=Radlauer |first=Rayne |date=5 September 2020 |title=Wikipedia Isn't Censoring Conservative Journalists |url=https://www.misbar.com/en/factcheck/2020/09/05/wikipedia-isn%E2%80%99t-censoring-conservative-journalists |website=Misbar}}</ref> the Jewish Virtual Library, NGO Monitor,<ref name="Elia-Shalev-2024">{{Cite web|url=https://www.jta.org/2024/06/18/united-states/adl-faces-wikipedia-ban-over-reliability-concerns-on-israel-antisemitism|title=ADL faces Wikipedia ban over reliability concerns on Israel, antisemitism|date=18 June 2024|website=Jewish Telegraphic Agency|last=Elia-Shalev|first=Asaf|access-date=12 May 2025|archive-date=19 June 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240619082259/https://www.jta.org/2024/06/18/united-states/adl-faces-wikipedia-ban-over-reliability-concerns-on-israel-antisemitism|url-status=live}}</ref> the Daily Kos, and BroadwayWorld<ref name="Talbot-2025" /> ** Sites that incorporate user-generated content, such as Amazon user reviews, Discogs, and TV Tropes<ref name="Thomas-2024" /><ref name="Talbot-2025"/> * '''Deprecated''': Sources "generally prohibited" for questionable reliability.<ref name="Lawrence-2024" /><ref name="Benjakob-2020" /> They can still be cited for "uncontroversial self-descriptions", but reliable secondary sources are preferred.<ref name="Gucia-2025">{{Cite web |last=Gucia |first=Wiktoria |date=2025-09-30 |title=MAGA Melts Down Over Wikipedia 'Blacklist' |url=https://www.thedailybeast.com/maga-melts-down-over-wikipedia-blacklist/ |access-date=2026-02-01 |website=The Daily Beast}}</ref><ref name="Baigutanova-2023" /> Deprecated sources include sources that are known for promoting unsubstantiated conspiracy theories.<ref name="Talbot-2025" /> Examples include: ** Occupy Democrats, One America News Network, ''The Epoch Times'', ''The Daily Caller'', ''The Gateway Pundit'',<ref name="Benjakob-2020">{{Cite news|url=https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/2020-01-09/ty-article/.premium/why-wikipedia-is-much-more-effective-than-facebook-at-fighting-fake-news/0000017f-e959-d639-af7f-e9df233d0000|title=Why Wikipedia Is Much More Effective Than Facebook at Fighting Fake News|last=Benjakob|first=Omer|date=10 January 2020|work=Haaretz|archive-date=20 June 2020|access-date=11 May 2025|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200620203412/https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-why-wikipedia-is-much-more-effective-than-facebook-at-fighting-fake-news-1.8378622|url-status=live}}</ref> ''The Grayzone'',<ref>{{Cite web |last=Thompson |first=Caitlin |date=30 July 2020 |title=Enter the Grayzone: fringe leftists deny the scale of China's Uyghur oppression |url=https://www.codastory.com/disinformation/grayzone-xinjiang-denialism/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211019184243/https://www.codastory.com/disinformation/grayzone-xinjiang-denialism/ |archive-date=19 October 2021 |access-date=11 May 2025 |website=Coda Story}}</ref> ''MintPress News'',<ref name="Steinsson-2023">{{Cite journal |last=Steinsson |first=Sverrir |date=9 March 2023 |title=Rule Ambiguity, Institutional Clashes, and Population Loss: How Wikipedia Became the Last Good Place on the Internet |journal=American Political Science Review |volume=118 |issue=1 |pages=235–251 |doi=10.1017/S0003055423000138 |issn=0003-0554|doi-access=free }}</ref> Newsmax,<ref name="Talbot-2025" /> archive.today<ref>{{Cite web |last=Brodkin |first=Jon |date=2026-02-20 |title=Wikipedia blacklists Archive.today, starts removing 695,000 archive links |url=https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/02/wikipedia-bans-archive-today-after-site-executed-ddos-and-altered-web-captures/ |access-date=2026-02-22 |website=Ars Technica |language=en}}</ref> and Grokipedia<ref>{{Cite web |last=Ayoob |first=Haseena |date=2026-02-04 |title=Wikipedia Declares 'Grokipedia' an Unreliable Source |url=https://thechenabtimes.com/2026/02/04/wikipedia-declares-grokipedia-an-unreliable-source/ |access-date=2026-04-02 |website=The Chenab Times |language=en-US}}</ref> ** Tabloid newspapers such as the ''Daily Mail'', ''The Sun'',<ref name="Benjakob-2020" /> the ''Daily Star'', and the ''National Enquirer''<ref name="Steinsson-2023" /> ** Chinese, Russian and Iranian state media outlets<ref name="Steinsson-2023" /> * '''Blacklisted''': These sources are on Wikipedia's spam blacklist due to "persistent abuse, usually in the form of embedded external links".<ref name="Baigutanova-2023" /> Examples include the Hindu nationalist websites OpIndia, ''Swarajya'', and ''TFIPost'',<ref>{{cite web |last1=Kauntia |first1=Nishant |date=30 November 2020 |title=How Wikipedia earned the ire of the Hindu Right |url=https://caravanmagazine.in/media/wikipedia-earned-ire-hindu-right |url-access=subscription |access-date=9 December 2020 |website=The Caravan |archive-date=7 December 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201207013821/https://caravanmagazine.in/media/wikipedia-earned-ire-hindu-right |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|first1=Ayush|last1=Tiwari|access-date=29 June 2020|title=OpIndia: Hate speech, vanishing advertisers, and an undisclosed BJP connection|url=https://www.newslaundry.com/2020/06/23/opindia-hate-speech-vanishing-advertisers-and-an-undisclosed-bjp-connection|website=Newslaundry|date=23 June 2020|archive-date=17 December 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211217205447/https://www.newslaundry.com/2020/06/23/opindia-hate-speech-vanishing-advertisers-and-an-undisclosed-bjp-connection|url-status=live}}</ref> and The Points Guy, ZoomInfo, and ''Natural News''<ref name="Baigutanova-2023" />
Some sources have multiple categorizations; for example, ''Newsweek'' after 2013 is categorized as a marginally reliable source,<ref name="Dzieza-2025">{{Cite web |last=Dzieza |first=Josh |date=2025-09-04 |title=Wikipedia is under attack — and how it can survive |url=https://www.theverge.com/cs/features/717322/wikipedia-attacks-neutrality-history-jimmy-wales |access-date=2025-09-05 |website=The Verge |language=en-US}}</ref> the ''New York Post'' is considered marginally reliable for entertainment-related topics and generally unreliable for non-entertainment topics,<ref name="Dzieza-2025" /> and ''Rolling Stone'' is considered generally unreliable for "politically and societally sensitive issues".<ref name="Brasch-2024">{{Cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2024/06/26/wikipedia-adl-jew-zionism-israel/|title=Wikipedia defends editors deeming Anti-Defamation League 'unreliable' on Gaza|last=Brasch|first=Ben|date=26 June 2024|newspaper=The Washington Post|archive-date=8 July 2024|access-date=4 May 2025|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240708080659/https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2024/06/26/wikipedia-adl-jew-zionism-israel/|url-status=live}}</ref> Some sources have also been both deprecated and blacklisted, such as ''Breitbart News'',<ref name="Cole-2018">{{Cite web |last=Cole |first=Samantha |date=2 October 2018 |title=Wikipedia Bans Right Wing Site Breitbart as a Source for Facts |url=https://www.vice.com/en/article/wikipedia-banned-breitbart-infowars/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250221100748/https://www.vice.com/en/article/wikipedia-banned-breitbart-infowars/ |archive-date=21 February 2025 |access-date=14 May 2025 |website=Vice}}</ref><ref name="Breslow-2022" /> ''Infowars'',<ref name="Cole-2018" /> the Heritage Foundation,<ref>{{Cite news |last=Howerton |first=Gwen |date=October 10, 2025 |title=Lawyer says Ted Cruz doesn't understand how Wikipedia works |url=https://www.chron.com/culture/article/ted-cruz-wikipedia-investigation-21092227.php |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20251017011719/https://www.chron.com/culture/article/ted-cruz-wikipedia-investigation-21092227.php |archive-date=2025-10-17 |access-date=2026-02-13 |work=Chron.com |language=en}}</ref> and state-sponsored fake news websites such as ''SouthFront'' and ''NewsFront''.<ref name="EU vs Disinfo-2022" />
Reliability discussions are held on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, a public forum. Editors discuss how well a source complies with Wikipedia's guideline on reliable sources. Sometimes, debates are held within Wikipedia's Request for Comment process.<ref name="Bandler-2024" /> The debates are public and archived, allowing people to see how a reliability assessment was reached.<ref name="Breslow-2022" />
Which sources are considered reliable differ among language versions. For example, the Persian Wikipedia heavily relies on Iranian state media outlets.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Aronov |first=Nikita |date=8 April 2025 |title=Wiki Wars: Editors and propagandists are fighting for influence over the online encyclopedia's most controversial entries |url=https://theins.ru/en/society/280371 |access-date=2025-05-29 |website=The Insider}}</ref> In 2022, the East StratCom Task Force reported that pro-Russian disinformation websites were being cited on the Russian, Arabic, Spanish, Portuguese, and Vietnamese Wikipedias, despite being blacklisted on the English Wikipedia.<ref name="EU vs Disinfo-2022">{{Cite web |date=2022-04-19 |title=Pro-Kremlin Disinformation Outlets Referenced By Hundreds Of Wikipedia Articles |url=https://www.stopfake.org/en/pro-kremlin-disinformation-outlets-referenced-by-hundreds-of-wikipedia-articles/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250123115446/https://www.stopfake.org/en/pro-kremlin-disinformation-outlets-referenced-by-hundreds-of-wikipedia-articles/ |archive-date=23 January 2025 |access-date=29 May 2025 |website= |publisher=EU vs Disinfo |via=StopFake}}</ref>
== Notable ratings == === ''Daily Mail'' === In February 2017, after a formal community discussion, editors on the English Wikipedia banned the use of the ''Daily Mail'' as a source in most cases.<ref name="Anthony-2017">{{Cite web|url=https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/02/wikipedia-bans-daily-mail/|title=Wikipedia bans Daily Mail for 'poor fact checking, sensationalism, flat-out fabrication'|date=10 Feb 2017|website=Ars Technica|last=Anthony|first=Sebastian|access-date=24 May 2025|archive-date=26 August 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220826123404/https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/02/wikipedia-bans-daily-mail/|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="Cole-2018" /><ref name="Benjakob-2020" /> Its use as a reference is now "generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist",<ref name="Jackson-2017" /><ref name="Anthony-2017" /><ref>{{cite web |last=Bowden |first=George |date=9 February 2017 |title=''Daily Mail'' Banned As 'Reliable Source' On Wikipedia in Unprecedented Move |url=http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/daily-mail-banned-from-wikipedia_uk_589c3e13e4b07685621810f8 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170209134706/http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/daily-mail-banned-from-wikipedia_uk_589c3e13e4b07685621810f8 |archive-date=9 February 2017 |access-date=9 February 2017 |website=The Huffington Post, UK |publisher=Huffington Post |quote=The decision was made by the site's community}}</ref> and it can no longer be used as proof of notability.<ref name="Anthony-2017" /> The ''Daily Mail'' can still be used as a source in an about-self fashion, when the ''Daily Mail'' itself is the subject of discussion.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Rodriguez |first=Ashley |date=10 February 2017 |title=In a first, Wikipedia has deemed the Daily Mail too "unreliable" to be used as a citation |url=https://qz.com/907715/in-a-first-wikipedia-has-deemed-the-daily-mail-and-mail-online-too-unreliable-to-be-used-as-a-citation/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210606080509/https://qz.com/907715/in-a-first-wikipedia-has-deemed-the-daily-mail-and-mail-online-too-unreliable-to-be-used-as-a-citation/ |archive-date=6 June 2021 |access-date=30 November 2022 |website=Quartz}}</ref><ref name="Harrison-2021" /> Support for the ban centered on "the ''Daily Mail''{{'}}s reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication".<ref name="Jackson-2017">{{cite news |last1=Jackson |first1=Jasper |date=9 February 2017 |title=Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' source |url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia-bans-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website |access-date=11 February 2017 |newspaper=The Guardian}}</ref><ref name="Anthony-2017" /><ref name="Cole-2018" /> Some users opposed the decision, arguing that it is "actually reliable for some subjects" and "may have been more reliable historically."<ref name="Oremus-2017">{{Cite news |last=Oremus |first=Will |date=2017-02-09 |title=Wikipedia's Daily Mail Ban Is a Welcome Rebuke to Terrible Journalism |url=https://slate.com/technology/2017/02/wikipedias-daily-mail-ban-is-a-welcome-rebuke-to-terrible-journalism.html |access-date=2024-08-17 |work=Slate |issn=1091-2339 |archive-date=24 May 2025 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250524012005/https://slate.com/technology/2017/02/wikipedias-daily-mail-ban-is-a-welcome-rebuke-to-terrible-journalism.html |url-status=live }}</ref> The ''Daily Mail'' thus became the first deprecated source.<ref name="Benjakob-2020" />
Wikipedia's ban of the ''Daily Mail'' generated a significant amount of media attention, especially from the British media.<ref name="Harrison-2021" /> Though the ''Daily Mail'' strongly contested this decision by the community, Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales backed the community's choice, saying: "I think what [the ''Daily Mail'' has] done brilliantly in this ad funded world, they've mastered the art of clickbait, they've mastered the art of hyped-up headlines. They've also mastered the art of—I'm sad to say—of running stories that simply aren't true. And that's why Wikipedia decided not to accept them as a source anymore. It's very problematic, they get very upset when we say this, but it's just fact."<ref>{{cite web |last=Kharpal |first=Arjun |date=19 May 2017 |title=The Daily Mail has 'mastered the art of running stories that aren't true', Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales says |url=https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/19/daily-mail-jimmy-wales-fake-news-wikipedia-wikitribune.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200615145709/https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/19/daily-mail-jimmy-wales-fake-news-wikipedia-wikitribune.html |archive-date=15 June 2020 |access-date=16 June 2020 |publisher=CNBC}}</ref> A February 2017 editorial in ''The Times'' on the decision said: "Newspapers make errors and have the responsibility to correct them. Wikipedia editors' fastidiousness, however, appears to reflect less a concern for accuracy than dislike of the ''Daily Mail''{{'}}s opinions."<ref>{{Cite news |date=10 February 2017 |title=Truth or Consequences: Fake news will not be countered by castigating legitimate journalism |url=https://www.thetimes.com/comment/article/truth-or-consequences-h6zfdj06n |url-access=limited |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201031051645/https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/truth-or-consequences-h6zfdj06n |archive-date=31 October 2020 |access-date=16 October 2020 |work=The Times |page=29}}</ref> ''Slate'' writer Will Oremus said the decision "should encourage more careful sourcing across Wikipedia while doubling as a richly deserved rebuke to a publication that represents some of the worst forces in online news."<ref name="Oremus-2017" />
In 2018, the Wikipedia community reaffirmed the ''Daily Mail''{{'}}s deprecation as a source.<ref name="Harrison-2021" /> In November 2020, ''Daily Mail'' sister paper ''The Mail on Sunday'' was also deprecated.<ref name="Steinsson-2023" />
=== Fox News === As of 2022, thousands of articles on Wikipedia use Fox News as a source. In 2010, the Wikipedia community held its first major discussion of Fox News's reliability. The community decided that Fox News was politically biased, but generally reliable. Since 2010, Fox News has been the subject of numerous debates on Wikipedia about its reliability. Discussions have run over hundreds of thousands of words and have included the input of over 100 editors. Many conversations have sought to establish, or enforce, a distinction between bias and reliability, with the latter having more to do with fact-checking and accuracy, though some argued that a consistent amount of errors and retractions in reporting are normal for a reliable media outlet.<ref name="Breslow-2022">{{Cite news |last=Breslow |first=Samuel |date=29 September 2022 |title=Wikipedia's Fox News Problem |url=https://slate.com/technology/2022/09/wikipedia-fox-news-reliability.html |access-date=4 May 2025 |work=Slate |issn=1091-2339 |archive-date=6 October 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221006081833/https://slate.com/technology/2022/09/wikipedia-fox-news-reliability.html |url-status=live }}</ref>
In July 2020, the Wikipedia community announced that Fox News would no longer be considered "generally reliable" in its reporting of science and politics, and that it "should be used with caution to verify contentious claims" about those topics.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Darcy |first=Oliver |author-link=Oliver Darcy |date=July 24, 2020 |title=Wikipedia administrators caution editors about using Fox News as source on 'contentious' claims |url=https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/24/media/wikipedia-fox-news-reliable-sources/index.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210629043839/https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/24/media/wikipedia-fox-news-reliable-sources/index.html |archive-date=June 29, 2021 |access-date=June 24, 2021 |website=CNN}}</ref> The decision was made because Fox News downplayed the COVID-19 pandemic, because of allegations that it spread misinformation about climate change, and because it reported on the false concept of "no-go zones" for non-Muslims in British cities. The decision did not affect Fox News's reliability on other topics.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Cohen |first=Noam |date=August 10, 2020 |title=Why Wikipedia Decided to Stop Calling Fox a 'Reliable' Source |url=https://www.wired.com/story/why-wikipedia-decided-to-stop-calling-fox-a-reliable-source |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210129135721/https://www.wired.com/story/why-wikipedia-decided-to-stop-calling-fox-a-reliable-source/ |archive-date=January 29, 2021 |access-date=June 24, 2021 |magazine=Wired |issn=1059-1028}}</ref>
In 2022, the Wikipedia community announced that Fox News would be considered "marginally reliable" in its reporting on science and politics. This meant that it cannot be used as a source for "exceptional claims" and that its reliability would be decided on a case-by-case basis for other scientific and political claims. The decision applies only to articles on Fox News's website and articles about topics that are scientific or political.<ref name="Breslow-2022" /> As of June 2024, Fox News and its talk shows are considered generally unreliable sources for scientific and political coverage.<ref name="Elia-Shalev-2024" /><ref name="Brasch-2024" /> These assessments do not apply to local affiliates owned by Fox.<ref name="Breslow-2022" />
=== Red Ventures === In February 2023, Wikipedia editors downgraded the reliability rating of CNET, a technology website owned at the time by Red Ventures, to "generally unreliable" after it was revealed that CNET was publishing content generated by artificial intelligence. CNET's reliability rating is broken into three time periods: pre-October 2020 (generally reliable prior to the acquisition), October 2020–October 2022 (no consensus on reliability following the acquisition by Red Ventures, "leading to a deterioration in editorial standards") and November 2022–present (generally unreliable, after CNET began using AI "to rapidly generate articles riddled with factual inaccuracies and affiliate links").<ref name="Dupré-2024">{{Cite web |last=Dupré |first=Maggie Harrison |date=29 February 2024 |title=Wikipedia No Longer Considers CNET a 'Generally Reliable' Source After AI Scandal |url=https://futurism.com/wikipedia-cnet-unreliable-ai |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240229230807/https://futurism.com/wikipedia-cnet-unreliable-ai |archive-date=29 February 2024 |access-date=15 May 2025 |website=Futurism}}</ref><ref name="Edwards-2024">{{Cite web|url=https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2024/02/wikipedia-downgrades-cnets-reliability-rating-after-ai-generated-articles/|title=AI-generated articles prompt Wikipedia to downgrade CNET's reliability rating|date=1 March 2024|website=Ars Technica|last=Edwards|first=Benj|access-date=15 May 2025|archive-date=5 March 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240305194215/https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2024/02/wikipedia-downgrades-cnets-reliability-rating-after-ai-generated-articles/|url-status=live}}</ref> The CNET incident resulted in editors expressing concern about the reliability of Red Ventures–owned websites, such as Bankrate and CreditCards.com, which also published AI-generated content around the same time.<ref name="Edwards-2024" /> In 2024, after a discussion on the reliability of Red Ventures–owned tech website ZDNET, a discussion was initiated of the reliability of all Red Ventures websites.<ref name="Dupré-2024" /> Red Ventures websites The Points Guy (TPG) and Healthline are on the spam blacklist, due to TPG's questionable relationships with the credit card companies it covers and Healthline's publication of misinformation.<ref name="Dupré-2024" />
=== Anti-Defamation League === {{see also|Wikipedia and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict}} thumb|The ADL's entries on the list, dependent on topic, as of June 2024 In April 2024, a discussion was initiated about the reliability of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) on its reliability on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, on antisemitism, and on the ADL's hate symbols database.<ref name="Bandler-2024" /> The discussion engaged 120 editors over two months<ref name="Brasch-2024" /> and included a wide range of perspectives, summarized by editors as "ranging from those who enthusiastically defended the ADL in all contexts, to those who viewed it as "categorically unreliable".<ref name="Bandler-2024" />
In June 2024, the discussion led to the ADL being downgraded to a "generally unreliable" source on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, including "the intersection of antisemitism and the [Israeli–Palestinian] conflict, such as labeling pro-Palestinian activists as antisemitic".<ref name="Bandler-2024" /><ref name="Brasch-2024" /> An English Wikipedia administrator who evaluated the community's consensus for this discussion said there was substantial evidence that the ADL acted as a "pro-Israeli advocacy group" that has published unretracted misinformation "to the point that it taints their reputation for accuracy and fact checking regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict", as well as that it has a habit "of conflating criticism of the Israeli government's actions with antisemitism".<ref name="Bandler-2024" /> The editors cited the ADL updating its methodology to classify pro-Palestinian protests as antisemitic incidents, controversial statements made by ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt that were criticized by the ADL's own staff, and its reliance on the IHRA definition of antisemitism, which critics have said is too broad and can be used to suppress pro-Palestinian speech.<ref name="Elia-Shalev-2024" />
The editors reached a consensus that "the ADL can roughly be taken as reliable on the topic of antisemitism when Israel and Zionism are not concerned". Of the ADL's hate symbol database, editors determined that "the rough consensus here is that the database is reliable for the existence of a symbol and for straightforward facts about it, but not reliable for more complex details, such as symbols' history".<ref name="Bandler-2024" /> The RSP listing for the ADL was updated to read that "outside of the topic of the Israel/Palestine conflict, the ADL is a generally reliable source, including for topics related to hate groups and extremism in the U.S."<ref name="Bandler-2024" /><ref name="Harrison-2025">{{cite news |last1=Harrison |first1=Stephen |author1-link=Stephen Harrison (author) |date=5 February 2025 |title=Project 2025's Creators Want to Dox Wikipedia Editors. The Tool They're Using Is Horrifying. |url=https://slate.com/technology/2025/02/wikipedia-project-2025-heritage-foundation-doxing-editors-antisemitism.html |access-date=5 February 2025 |website=Slate}}</ref>
The ADL condemned the downgrade, alleging it was part of a "campaign to delegitimize" the organization.<ref name="Elia-Shalev-2024" /> The decision was also criticized by over 40 Jewish organizations, including Jewish Federations of North America, B'nai B'rith International and HIAS.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Nechin |first=Etan |date=June 25, 2024 |title=Leading Jewish Groups Rebuke Wikipedia's 'Attack' on ADL's Credibility on Antisemitism |url=https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/2024-06-25/ty-article/.premium/leading-jewish-groups-rebuke-wikipedias-attack-on-adls-credibility-on-antisemitism/00000190-4f10-da42-a1ba-7f7a12ad0000 |work=Haaretz |archive-date=25 June 2024 |access-date=27 May 2025 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240625200103/https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/2024-06-25/ty-article/.premium/leading-jewish-groups-rebuke-wikipedias-attack-on-adls-credibility-on-antisemitism/00000190-4f10-da42-a1ba-7f7a12ad0000 |url-status=live }}</ref> The Wikimedia Foundation said in response, "The Foundation has not, and does not, intervene in decisions made by the community about the classification of a source".<ref name="Brasch-2024" />
James Loeffler, a professor of modern Jewish history at Johns Hopkins University, said the English Wikipedia's decision was a "significant hit" to the ADL's credibility. Dov Waxman, professor of Israel Studies at the University of California, Los Angeles, said that if "Wikipedia and other sources and the journalists start ignoring the ADL's data, it becomes a real issue for Jewish Americans who are understandably concerned about the rise of antisemitism". Mira Sucharov, a professor of political science at Carleton University, said the decision was "a sign that the Jewish community needs better institutions".<ref name="Elia-Shalev-2024" />
== Impact == RSP affects whether sources are cited and how they are summarized in Wikipedia articles. According to political scientist Sverrir Steinsson, by classifying the reliability of news sources, "Wikipedia has accepted the use of contested labels and taken sides on contested subjects, ultimately producing a type of content that is distinctly anti-pseudoscience and anti-conspiracy theories, and which has the perception of a liberal bent in U.S. politics". This led to discontent and departures among the "pro-fringe camp" of Wikipedia editors, which Steinsson defined as "Editors who were more supportive of conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, and conservatism".<ref name="Steinsson-2023" /><ref>{{cite web |title=Sverrir Steinsson |url=https://munkschool.utoronto.ca/person/sverrir-steinsson |website= |publisher=Munk School of Global Affairs |access-date=19 May 2025 |archive-date=27 April 2025 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250427030328/https://munkschool.utoronto.ca/person/sverrir-steinsson |url-status=live }}</ref>
A 2023 Association for Computing Machinery conference paper found that the median lifespan of a source citation on English Wikipedia decreased by over two-thirds after the source was designated as deprecated or blacklisted on RSP.<ref name="Baigutanova-2023">{{cite conference |last1=Baigutanova |first1=Aitolkyn |last2=Myung |first2=Jaehyeon |last3=Saez-Trumper |first3=Diego |last4=Chou |first4=Ai-Jou |last5=Redi |first5=Miriam |last6=Jung |first6=Changwook |last7=Cha |first7=Meeyoung |title=Longitudinal Assessment of Reference Quality on Wikipedia |book-title=WWW '23: Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023 |publisher=Association for Computing Machinery |date=30 April 2023 |pages=2831–2839 |doi=10.1145/3543507.3583218 |doi-access=free |arxiv=2303.05227 }}</ref>
Wikipedia editors who are pop culture fans have created lists of sources that are structured similarly to RSP but focus on specific topic areas, such as video games. These topic-focused lists are maintained by WikiProjects that evaluate sources using both Wikipedia's reliability guidelines and supplemental subject-related criteria created by the WikiProjects themselves. When a niche source that is designated as "reliable" in a topic-focused list receives sufficient attention, the source is added to RSP and listed alongside mainstream generalist sources.<ref name="Thomas-2024">{{cite book |last1=Thomas |first1=Paul A. |title=The Information Behavior of Wikipedia Fan Editors: A Digital (Auto)Ethnography |date=30 July 2024 |publisher=Rowman & Littlefield |isbn=978-1-6669-4194-4 |url=https://rowman.com/ISBN/9781666941937/The-Information-Behavior-of-Wikipedia-Fan-Editors-A-Digital-(Auto)Ethnography |url-access=subscription |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=CN8MEQAAQBAJ&pg=PA55 |chapter-url-access=limited |access-date=20 May 2025 |pages=55–71 |chapter=Evaluating Sources |via=Google Books |archive-date=20 January 2025 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250120094658/https://rowman.com/ISBN/9781666941937/The-Information-Behavior-of-Wikipedia-Fan-Editors-A-Digital-(Auto)Ethnography |url-status=live }}</ref>
== Reception == While the debates are public and archived, critics have said it is not clear who the volunteer editors are and how they are vetted.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Collins |first=Michael |title=Anti-hate group ADL slams Wikipedia after site labels it 'unreliable' source on conflict |url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2024/06/21/wikipedia-adl-israel-palestinian-conflict-antisemitism/74172605007/ |access-date=4 May 2025 |website=USA TODAY |archive-date=22 June 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240622021018/https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2024/06/21/wikipedia-adl-israel-palestinian-conflict-antisemitism/74172605007/ |url-status=live }}</ref>
In 2020, {{ill|Omer Benjakob|he|עומר בן יעקב}} of ''Haaretz'' stated that with RSP, "Wikipedia offers greater transparency and a much better model for fighting disinformation than any social media platform has yet to do, simply by building a community of fact-checkers dedicated to keeping the site accurate".<ref name="Benjakob-2020" /> In 2025, Stephen Harrison of ''Slate'' said, "Contrary to sensationalist media coverage, decisions made by the Wikipedia community tend to be carefully considered... While headlines suggested that Wikipedia had completely banned the ADL, the actual decision makes clear that the organization can still be used as a source in certain contexts outside the Israeli–Palestinian conflict." He added, "To be fair, the Wikipedia community could do a better job of explaining ''why'' advocacy organizations are not always considered reliable sources based on the context; however, that is a complex discussion that's not easily contained within a tweet."<ref name="Harrison-2025" />
In 2019, the decision by editors to deprecate pro-Donald Trump outlets such as ''The Epoch Times'', One America News Network, ''The Daily Caller'', and ''The Gateway Pundit'' led the American right{{Weasel inline|date=May 2026}} to claim that Wikipedia has a liberal bias.<ref name="Benjakob-2020" /> In 2025, the list was criticized by American conservative group Media Research Center (MRC) as a blacklist with a bias against conservative outlets;<ref name="Hurley-2025" /> the MRC was cited in a ''New York Post'' editorial titled "Big Tech must block Wikipedia until it stops censoring and pushing disinformation".<ref name="Talbot-2025" /> Ari Paul of ''ScheerPost'' commented, "the fact that the [''New York Post''] implies only right-wing sources are listed is an indication that its reputation as 'generally unreliable for factual reporting' is well-deserved."<ref>{{Cite web |last=Paul |first=Ari |date=2025-04-30 |title=Feds Threaten Wikipedia After Right-Wing Media Uproar |url=https://scheerpost.com/2025/04/30/feds-threaten-wikipedia-after-right-wing-media-uproar/ |access-date=2025-05-28 |website=ScheerPost |archive-date=29 May 2025 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250529000645/https://scheerpost.com/2025/04/30/feds-threaten-wikipedia-after-right-wing-media-uproar/ |url-status=live }}</ref>
== See also == * Ideological bias on Wikipedia * Reliability of Wikipedia
==Notes== {{notelist}}
==References== {{reflist}}
== External links == * {{srlink|Wikipedia:Deprecated sources}}, another Wikipedia internal page
{{Wikipedia}}
Category:Wikipedia reliability Category:Sources (journalism) Category:Media analysis organizations and websites Category:Wikipedia content Category:Criticism of Wikipedia