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 are determined through public editor discussion and debate, arriving at consensus, and have received significant news coverage of 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]
Categorizations
[edit]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, which means links to the site are links to the site are blocked as spam unless editors receive special permission to use them.[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 "not vote" is because Wikipedia policy states that Request for Comment process is not supposed to reflect majority rule but rather to have a consensus-building discussion, where the rating is determined by the strength of the respective arguments and the strength of the provided evidence.[4][3]
The debates are public and archived, allowing people to see how the rating was reached.[4]
Wikipedia's guidelines makes a distinction between bias—defined as a tendency to make editorial choices that favor a particular ideology—and reliability—defined as the level of commitment to factual accuracy. As such, publications such as socialist magazine Jacobin and the libertarian magazine Reason, are regarded as biased but still deemed generally reliable.[4]
2017 Daily Mail rating
[edit]In 2017, Wikipedia editors downgraded the Daily Mail as to being "generally unreliable" on the Reliable sources/Perennial sources list, leading to a large volume of British media coverage for the unprecedented ban.[3][7] 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]
The Wikipedia community upheld its decision on the Daily Mail in 2018.[3]
As a result, the number of citations to the Daily Mail declined. An English Wikipedia from January 1, 2017 had more than 30,000 articles using the Daily Mail as a reference. Whereas by 2021, a Reddit user observed that Wikipedia had declined to fewer than 10,000 uses of the Daily Mail as a reference.[3]
Fox News ratings
[edit]Fox News has been the subject of numerous debates over the years, with discussions running over hundreds of thousands of words in total.[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. However, outside of the opinion shows, Fox News can be used as a reliable source for most news coverage, with a strong caveat when it comes to politics and scientific subjects, where the assessment is Fox News should be used as a source with caution.[3] Fox News articles about topics other than politics and science have been considered generally reliable.[4]
The first major discussion on Fox News reliability took place in 2010. After 28,000 words of debate, it was closed by a Wikipedia administrator with the consensus that Fox News is politically biased but factually generally reliable.
The next major discussion took place in 2020 and ran to 77,000 words. The debate was closed by a panel of three administrators, who assessed that the group consensus found Fox remained reliable for most types of content, but that no consensus was reached about its reliability for politics and science content.[4]
A third discussion took place in 2022, with more than 150 users weighing in, leading to a thread more than 82,000 words long.[4] A Wikipedia administrator, Kevin Li, closed the discussion determining that the consensus deemed Fox to be a “marginally reliable” source for information about politics and science. This meant that the use of Fox News as a reference would not be permitted for “exceptional claims” in Wikipedia articles that require heightened scrutiny, but that its reliability could be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for other claims.[4]
The assessments do not apply to local affiliates owned by Fox.[4]
2024 Anti-Defamation League debate
[edit]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.”
A relatively small minority of editors had defend the ADL in the 2024 debate, arguing that while critics of the group managed to show that the ADL may have been biased or partisan but not that it publishes false information.[10] They noted at the organization’s statistics and analysis were widely cited by many news outlets that are themselves were considered "generally reliable" Wikipedia.[10]
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.[11]
Criticism
[edit]While the debates are public and archived, critics say it is not clear who the volunteer editors are and how they are vetted.[11]
See also
[edit]References
[edit]- ^ a b Talbot, Margaret (2025-03-04). "Elon Musk Also Has a Problem with Wikipedia". The New Yorker. ISSN 0028-792X. Retrieved 2025-05-03.
- ^ a b c d e f Bandler, Aaron (2024-06-21). "Wikipedia Editors Label ADL Only Reliable for Antisemitism When "Israel and Zionism Are Not Concerned"". Jewish Journal. Retrieved 2025-05-03.
- ^ a b c d e f g Harrison, Stephen (2021-07-01). "Wikipedia's War on the Daily Mail". Slate. ISSN 1091-2339. Retrieved 2025-05-03.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k Breslow, Samuel (2022-09-29). "Wikipedia's Fox News Problem". Slate. ISSN 1091-2339. Retrieved 2025-05-04.
- ^ York, Bevan Hurley, New (2025-02-06). "Wikipedia accused of blacklisting conservative US media". www.thetimes.com. Retrieved 2025-05-03.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Board, Post Editorial (2025-02-05). "Big Tech must block Wikipedia until it stops censoring and pushing disinformation". Retrieved 2025-05-03.
- ^ a b Jackson, Jasper (2017-02-08). "Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' source". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2025-05-03.
- ^ "Wikipedia defends editors deeming Anti-Defamation League 'unreliable' on Gaza". Washington Post. 2024-06-26. Archived from the original on 2024-07-08. Retrieved 2025-05-04.
- ^ Merid, Feven. "Wikipedia's Reluctant Resisters". Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved 2025-05-03.
- ^ a b Elia-Shalev, Asaf (2024-06-18). "ADL faces Wikipedia ban over reliability concerns on Israel, antisemitism". Jewish Telegraphic Agency. Retrieved 2025-05-03.
- ^ a b Collins, Michael. "Anti-hate group ADL slams Wikipedia after site labels it 'unreliable' source on conflict". USA TODAY. Retrieved 2025-05-04.