Wikipedia Perennial Sources List (WP:RSP)

OSINT, Search

Free
No Download/Install required
No registration

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources

The Wikipedia Perennial Sources page is a dynamic index that documents community consensus on the reliability of frequently cited news organizations, academic journals, and digital platforms. It classifies sources into specific tiers—such as generally reliable, no consensus, or deprecated—based on documented evaluations of their editorial standards, fact-checking history, and potential for bias. Each entry provides a transparent audit trail by linking to formal Requests for Comment (RfCs), offering a meta-analysis of media credibility that is continuously updated to reflect changes in a publication’s ownership, editorial shifts, or the integration of AI-generated content.

Tip: by very far not complete compared to the whole internet, but if your site target is on this list, be sure it has been discussed extensively.

Quality assurance and innovation professionals can apply this resource as a secondary validation layer when vetting non-peer-reviewed technical intelligence and industry news. By cross-referencing external reports against these consensus-based ratings, engineers and researchers can identify publications with a history of systemic inaccuracy or promotional bias before integrating their data into technical documentation or feasibility studies. This systematic approach to source verification is particularly valuable in manufacturing for filtering out unreliable market intelligence and ensuring that strategic decisions are grounded in information from outlets with established reputations for accuracy.

Disciplines: Journalism, OSINT, Media literacy, Wikipedia editing, Research.

Free alternative to Media Bias Fact Check, NewsGuard.

Wikipedia Perennial Sources List (WP:RSP) compared with Media Bias Fact Check and NewsGuard
Wikipedia Perennial Sources List (WP:RSP)	Media Bias Fact Check	NewsGuard
Rating basis: Entries record the consensus of Wikipedia editors, usually reached through a request for comment. Deprecation is reserved for sources with a substantial history of fabrication or serious accuracy problems. The list is a sourcing guide for Wikipedia, not a general credibility score.	Rating basis: Media Bias Fact Check is owned and operated by one person, who makes the final editorial decisions. Three volunteers help with research, fact-checking and writing, and none is a professional journalist. Ratings cover political bias and factual reliability.	Rating basis: Journalists and editors rate each site against nine criteria, for example whether it repeatedly publishes false content, corrects errors and separates news from opinion. The result is a score from 0 to 100.
Rating scale: Status tiers include generally reliable, no consensus, generally unreliable, deprecated and blacklisted. Blacklisted sources cannot be used at all, and the page states that reliability depends on context.	Rating scale: Categories include Least Biased, Left-Center, Left, Right-Center, Right, Questionable Sources, Conspiracy-Pseudoscience, Pro-Science and Satire. The numeric scoring behind them is proprietary.	Rating scale: A score above 75 indicates credibility, 60 to 75 is labeled credibility with exceptions, and below 60 indicates unreliability.
Transparency of evidence: Each entry links to the discussions and requests for comment that produced the status, so a reader can audit the reasoning and the date.	Transparency of evidence: Ratings are supported by linked evidence and sources can be re-reviewed when new information appears. Numeric scores are shared only with some verified media, academic or research organizations.	Transparency of evidence: Each site has a Nutrition Label that explains its rating in detail. The founders state that labels are not an endorsement.
Coverage: The list is far from complete compared with the whole internet. A source that appears on it has, however, been discussed extensively by the community.		Coverage: As of 2019, 35 journalists had reviewed over 2,000 news sites. This is a figure from a past report, not a current count.
Access and cost model: The list is a public Wikipedia page that anyone can read and cite.	Access and cost model: Ratings are publicly viewable. An ad-free membership exists, and an API is available under a commercial licence.	Access and cost model: NewsGuard licenses its ratings to clients such as technology companies and advertisers. The browser extension became a paid, member-supported product in 2020, and it remained free for libraries, schools and Microsoft Edge users.