Reliable sources/Perennial sources

Reliable sources/Perennial sources is an user-maintained list on English Wikipedia that classifies sources by degrees of reliability.^[1] The ratings, which are determined through public discussion and consensus, have received significant news coverage over the years.^[2][3][4]

The Reliable sources/Perennial sources ratings are not meant to function as “pre-approved sources that can always be used without regard for the ordinary rules of editing,” nor is it a “list of banned sources that can never be used or should be removed on sight.”^[1] Nonetheless, the list has been criticized by some media sources as a "blacklist," with a bias against conservative outlets.^[5][6]

The Reliable sources/Perennial sources generally buckets sources as being “generally reliable,” defined as being “independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy”; “marginally reliable,” defined as can be used only in “certain circumstances”; “generally unreliable”, which “should normally not be used”; and “deprecated,” which is “generally prohibited."^[2]

Among those sources which are "deprecated" is Breitbart News.^[4]

Editor discussions are held on a public forum called Reliable Sources Noticeboard, where a debate can be initiated by a Request for Comment, abbreviated as "RfC." Editors discuss whether a source complies with Wikipedia’s reliable sources guideline, and then come to a consensus in a process where editors each voice their assessment. However, the conclusion is not determined by a vote and is specifically described on the site as "not-vote" or "!vote," where the "!" represents "not."^[2][3]

The debates are public and archived, allowing people to see how the rating was reached.^[4]

In 2017, Wikipedia editors downgraded the Daily Mail as to being "generally unreliable" on the Reliable sources/Perennial sources list after a prolonged debate on the site; any attempt to use Daily Mail as a source on a Wikipedia page would be met with a disclaimer. Wikipedia editors cited "the Daily Mail’s reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism and flat-out fabrication” as the reasoning behind the ban. Of the more than 90 editors who contributed to the debate, 58 supported the ban.^[7] At the time, tens of thousands of articles used the newspaper as a source.^[3]

The decision led to a large volume of British media coverage for the unprecedented ban.^[3][7] Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales affirmed the site's choice, while the Daily Mail responded with criticism of the site and its editors.^[3]

As of 2022, thousands of articles on Wikipedia use Fox News as a source. Since 2010, Fox News has been the subject of numerous debates on Wikipedia regarding whether or not it can be used as a reliable source, with discussions running over hundreds of thousands of words in total and concerning the input of over a hundred editors.^[4]

Many conversations have sought to establish or enforce a distinction between bias versus 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 conduct for even a reliable media outlet.^[4]

On Fox News, opinion talk shows like Hannity and Tucker Carlson Tonight, which ran from 2016 to 2023, are considered generally unreliable for statements of fact and not to be used as sources on Wikipedia. Fox News articles about topics other than politics and science have been considered generally reliable.^[3][4]

The assessments do not apply to local affiliates owned by Fox.^[4]

In April 2024, a discussion was launched about the reliability of the Anti-Defamation League in three separate areas: one on the group's reliability on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; one on antisemitism more broadly and the third part on the advocacy group’s hate symbols database.^[2]

The discussion engaged 120 editors over two months,^[8] 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."^[2]

As a result, the ADL was downgraded in June 2024 to being a "generally unreliable" source on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, limiting how the organization can be cited in that context on Wikipedia.^[9] On the topic of anti-semitism, 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.” And in regard to the organization'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."^[2]

The Reliable sources/Perennial sources listing for the ADL was updated to state “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.”

The CEO of ADL, Jonathan Greenblatt, said the organization was never formally notified of the rating and only learned of it when it was contacted by news organizations.^[10]

While the debates are public and archived, critics say it is not clear who the volunteer editors are and how they are vetted.^[10]

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources