Theperennial sources list[a] (abbreviated asRSP or shortcut form WP:RSP) is a community-maintained list on theEnglish Wikipedia that classifies sources by degrees of reliability.[2][3] It was established in 2018.[4] The ratings, which are determined through public discussion and consensus, have received significant news coverage.[5][6][7]
Ratings on the list are not meant to function as "pre-approved sources that can always be used without regard for the ordinary rules of editing", nor is the list a "list of banned sources that can never be used or should be removed on sight".[6][3]
The perennial sources list catalogs sources under four categories, "generally reliable", "marginally reliable", "generally unreliable", and "deprecated". Generally reliable sources must be "independent, published sources with a reputation forfact-checking and accuracy". Marginally reliable sources are usable only in "certain circumstances".[2][5] Generally unreliable sources "should normally not be used, and... should never be used for information about aliving person".[8] Deprecated sources are "generally prohibited".[2][5] Deprecated sources are of questionable reliability[9] and include sources known for promoting unsubstantiatedconspiracy theories.[3] Separately, the list indicates when a source is "blacklisted on Wikipedia due to "persistent abuse, usually in the form of embeddedexternal links".[10]
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 withinWikipedia's Request for Comment process.[5] The debates are public and archived, allowing people to see how a reliability assessment was reached.[7]
Which sources are considered reliable differ among language versions. For example, thePersian Wikipedia heavily relies on Iranianstate media outlets.[11] In 2022, theEast StratCom Task Force reported that pro-Russiandisinformation websites were being cited on theRussian,Arabic,Spanish,Portuguese, andVietnamese Wikipedias, despite being blacklisted on theEnglish Wikipedia.[12]
 | This sectionmay containexcessive orirrelevant examples. Please helpimprove it by removingless pertinent examples andelaborating on existing ones.(August 2025) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Sources considered generally reliable include news channels such asCNN,MSNBC[7] andAl Jazeera;[13] traditional newspapers such asThe New York Times,The Washington Post,The Wall Street Journal,[6]The Daily Telegraph,[14]The Times and its sister paperThe Sunday Times,[15]The Guardian, andThe Nation,[5] as well asSlate,BuzzFeed News,[6] andProPublica.[16] Non-news outlets, such as theSouthern Poverty Law Center, andAmnesty International, are also categorized as generally reliable.[13]
Sources under the "no consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply" category includeNational Review,Jezebel,Salon.com,[7]Newsweek after 2013 and theNew York Post on entertainment-related topics.[16] Sources considered generally unreliable includeRolling Stone on "politically and societally sensitive issues",[17]The Daily Wire,[7]The Post Millennial,[18] theNew York Post on non-entertainment topics,[16] theJewish Virtual Library,NGO Monitor,[8] theDaily Kos, andBroadwayWorld.[3] Sites that incorporateuser-generated content, includingAmazon user reviews,Discogs, andTV Tropes, are also considered generally unreliable.[19][3]
Deprecated sources includeOccupy Democrats,One America News Network,The Epoch Times,The Daily Caller,The Gateway Pundit,The Sun,[9]The Grayzone,[20]MintPress News,[21] andNewsmax.[3] Other deprecated sources include Chinese (CGTN,Global Times), Russian (RT,Sputnik), Iranian (Press TV,HispanTV), and Venezuelan (Telesur)state media outlets[21] and advocacy organizations that have taken overtly pro-Russia, pro-China, or pro-Arab perspectives.[22]
Blacklisted sources include theHindu nationalist websitesOpIndia,Swarajya, andTFIPost,[23][24] as well asThe Points Guy,ZoomInfo,Natural News,[10] andthe Heritage Foundation.[25] Sources that have been both deprecated and blacklisted includeBreitbart News,[26][7]Infowars,[26] and state-sponsoredfake news websites such asSouthFront andNewsFront.[12]
In February 2017, after a formal community discussion, editors on theEnglish Wikipedia banned the use of theDaily Mail as a source, in most cases.[27][26][9] Its use as a reference is now "generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist",[28][27][29] and it can no longer be used as proof ofnotability.[27] TheDaily Mail can still be used as a source in anabout-self fashion, when theDaily Mail itself is the subject of discussion.[30][6] Support for the ban centered on "theDaily Mail's reputation for poorfact checking,sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication".[28][27][26] Some users opposed the decision, arguing that it is "actually reliable for some subjects" and "may have been more reliable historically."[31] TheDaily Mail thus became the first deprecated source.[9]
Wikipedia's ban of theDaily Mail generated a significant amount of media attention, especially from the British media.[6] Though theDaily Mail strongly contested this decision by the community, Wikipedia's co-founderJimmy Wales backed the community's choice, saying: "I think what [theDaily Mail has] done brilliantly in this ad funded world, they've mastered the art ofclickbait, 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."[32] A February 2017 editorial inThe 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 theDaily Mail's opinions."[33]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."[31]
In 2018, theWikipedia community reaffirmed theDaily Mail's deprecation as a source.[6] In November 2020,Daily Mailsister paperThe Mail on Sunday was also deprecated.[21]
As of 2022, thousands of articles on Wikipedia useFox News as a source. In 2010, theWikipedia 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.[7]
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.[34] The decision was made because Fox News downplayed theCOVID-19 pandemic, because of allegations that it spreadmisinformation 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.[35]
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.[7] As of June 2024, Fox News andits talk shows are considered generally unreliable sources for scientific and political coverage.[8][17] These assessments do not apply tolocal affiliates owned by Fox.[7]
In February 2023, Wikipedia editors downgraded the reliability rating ofCNET, a technology website owned at the time byRed Ventures, to "generally unreliable" after it was revealed that CNET was publishing content generated byartificial 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").[36][37] The CNET incident resulted in editors expressing concern about the reliability of Red Ventures–owned websites, such asBankrate and CreditCards.com, which also published AI-generated content around the same time.[37] In 2024, after a discussion on the reliability of Red Ventures–owned tech websiteZDNET, a discussion was initiated of the reliability of all Red Ventures websites.[36] Red Ventures websitesThe Points Guy (TPG) andHealthline are on the spam blacklist, due to TPG's questionable relationships with the credit card companies it covers and Healthline's publication ofmisinformation.[36]
In April 2024, a discussion was initiated about the reliability of theAnti-Defamation League (ADL) on its reliability on theIsraeli–Palestinian conflict, onantisemitism, and onthe ADL's hate symbols database.[5] The discussion engaged 120 editors over two months[17] 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".[5]
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".[5][17] 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 unretractedmisinformation "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 conflatingcriticism of the Israeli government's actions with antisemitism".[5] The editors cited the ADL updating its methodology to classifypro-Palestinian protests as antisemitic, controversial statements made by ADL CEOJonathan Greenblatt that were criticized by the ADL's own staff, and its reliance on theIHRA definition of antisemitism, which critics have said is too broad and can be used tosuppress pro-Palestinian speech.[8]
The editors reached a consensus that "the ADL can roughly be taken as reliable on the topic of antisemitism when Israel andZionism 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".[5] 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 tohate groups and extremism in the U.S."[5][22]
The ADL condemned the downgrade, alleging it was part of a "campaign to delegitimize" the organization.[8] The decision was also criticized by over 40 Jewish organizations, includingJewish Federations of North America,B'nai B'rith International andHIAS.[38] TheWikimedia Foundation said in response, "The Foundation has not, and does not, intervene in decisions made by the community about the classification of a source".[17]
James Loeffler, a professor of modern Jewish history atJohns Hopkins University, said the English Wikipedia's decision was a "significant hit" to the ADL's credibility.Dov Waxman, professor of Israel Studies at theUniversity 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 atCarleton University, said the decision was "a sign that the Jewish community needs better institutions".[8]
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 aliberal 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, andconservatism".[21][39]
A 2023Association of 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.[10]
Wikipedia editors who arepop culture fans have created lists of sources that are structured similarly to RSP but focus on specific topic areas, such asvideo games. These topic-focused lists are maintained byWikiProjects 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.[19]
While the debates are public and archived, critics have said it is not clear who the volunteer editors are and how they are vetted.[40]
In 2020, Omer Benjakob ofHaaretz stated that with RSP, "Wikipedia offers greater transparency and a much better model for fightingdisinformation than anysocial media platform has yet to do, simply by building a community of fact-checkers dedicated to keeping the site accurate".[9] In 2025,Stephen Harrison ofSlate 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 explainingwhy 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."[22]
In 2019, the decision by editors to deprecate pro-Donald Trump outlets such asThe Epoch Times, One America News Network,The Daily Caller, andThe Gateway Pundit led theAmerican right to claim that Wikipedia has aliberal bias.[9] In 2025, the list was criticized by American conservative groupMedia Research Center (MRC) as a blacklist with a bias against conservative outlets;[15] the MRC was cited in aNew York Post editorial titled "Big Tech must block Wikipedia until it stops censoring and pushing disinformation".[3] Ari Paul ofScheerPost 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."[41]
In Wiki's traffic-light system of sources, it is coded red for 'generally unreliable';The Telegraph is coded green for 'generally reliable'.
The decision was made by the site's community
