Perennial sources list

The perennial sources list (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.[2][3] It was established in 2018. The ratings, which are determined through public discussion and consensus, have received significant news coverage.[4][5]

Ratings on the list are not meant to function as "preapproved sources" that could always be used without regard for the ordinary rules of editing, nor is the list a "list of banned sources" that could never be used or should be removed on sight.[5][3]

The perennial sources list catalogs sources under five categories:

Some sources have multiple categorizations; for example, Newsweek after 2013 is categorized as a marginally reliable source,[19] the New York Post is considered marginally reliable for entertainment-related topics and generally unreliable for non-entertainment topics,[19] and Rolling Stone is considered generally unreliable for "politically and societally sensitive issues".[20] Some sources have also been both deprecated and blacklisted, such as Breitbart News,[21] Infowars,[21] the Heritage Foundation,[22]

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.[25][21][12] Its use as a reference is now "generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist",[25][26] and it can no longer be used as proof of notability.[25]

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".[14][39]

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.[40]

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.

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.[42]

In 2020, Omer Benjakob 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".[12] 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."[37]

In 2019, the decision by editors to deprecate pro–Donald Trump outlets such as The Epoch Times, One America News Network

External links

, another Wikipedia internal page

References

Feven Merid. Wikipedia's Reluctant Resisters Columbia Journalism Review, 13 March 2025, retrieved 3 June 2025^
Amanda Lawrence, Brigid van Wanrooy. Sourcing public policy: organisation publishing in Wikipedia New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia, Taylor & Francis, 1 October 2024^
Margaret Talbot. Elon Musk Also Has a Problem with Wikipedia

Anti-Defamation League

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.[4] The discussion engaged 120 editors over two months[20] 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".[4]

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".[4][20] 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".[4] 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.[10]

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".[4] 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."[4][37]

The ADL condemned the downgrade, alleging it was part of a "campaign to delegitimize" the organization.[10] The decision was also criticized by over 40 Zionist organizations, including Jewish Federations of North America, B'nai B'rith International and HIAS.[38] 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".[20]

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".[10]

Perennial sources list

Contents