What Counts as a Source
Abstract
Journals, state textbook boards, Wikipedia's volunteer editors and Reddit's company and moderators each decide which material counts as a source or stays on the page. Five publishers produced more than half of the papers indexed in the Web of Science in 2013. Texas and California law give a state board the approval step for school textbooks, and Wikipedia's volunteers sort sources into five statuses by consensus. Reddit reports that its admins banned 640,685 communities in the second half of 2023, 71 percent of them for spam. Of the 183,836 non-spam bans, 92 percent were for unmoderated communities.
3.1 Journals and publishers
Larivière and colleagues assigned 45 million documents indexed in the Web of Science between 1973 and 2013 to publishers. They used the publisher, city and country recorded for each issue and tracked mergers and acquisitions.
Five publishers produced more than half of all papers indexed in the Web of Science in 2013, up from about one-fifth in the natural and medical sciences in 1973.
In the natural and medical sciences the five largest publishers held little more than 20 percent of papers in 1973 and 53 percent in 2013. In the social sciences and humanities combined they held under 10 percent through 1990 and over 51 percent in 2013.
Evidence: Exhibit 1021
Mechanism: The middleman
The social sciences alone reach 70 percent from the top five publishers, and the humanities stay near 20 percent. In 2013 Reed-Elsevier produced 24.1 percent of natural and medical science papers, Springer 11.9 percent and Wiley-Blackwell 11.3 percent. The figures cover journals indexed in the Web of Science. Papers outside that index are not counted.
Exhibit 1021 · Peer-reviewed study
The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era
Combined, the top five most prolific publishers account for more than 50% of all papers published in 2013.
Analysis of 45 million documents indexed in the Web of Science, 1973-2013, assigning journals to publishers by the publisher, city and country recorded for each issue and tracking mergers and acquisitions. Natural and medical sciences: the five largest publishers held little more than 20% of papers in 1973 and 53% in 2013. Social sciences and humanities: under 10% through 1990 and over 51% in 2013. Social sciences alone reach 70% from the top five; humanities stay near 20%. Reed-Elsevier 24.1%, Springer 11.9% and Wiley-Blackwell 11.3% of natural and medical science papers in 2013. Coverage is limited to journals indexed in the Web of Science.
- Source
- Larivière, Haustein and Mongeon, PLOS ONE 10(6): e0127502
- Date
- 10 June 2015
- Quoted from
- Abstract
- Grade
- Peer-reviewed
- Document
- https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127502
- Accessed
- 2026-11-10
- Cited by
- Findings citing this exhibit
The largest of these publishers reports its own figures. RELX, the parent of Elsevier, prints revenue and adjusted operating profit for its Scientific, Technical & Medical segment in its 2025 annual report.
RELX reported 2025 revenue of GBP 2,714m and adjusted operating profit of GBP 1,035m for its Scientific, Technical & Medical segment, which is Elsevier. The report states that Elsevier received more than 4.2 million submissions in 2025, published more than 795,000 articles, and worked with over 37,000 editors and over 1.9 million reviewers.
Adjusted operating profit is a measure RELX defines itself. The ratio of the two printed figures is 38.1 percent, computed for this chapter.
Evidence: Exhibit 1022
Mechanism: The middleman
The report states that the latest available long-term comparison showed Elsevier journal articles accounting for over 18 percent of global research output and 29 percent of citations. It states that the 2025 submissions were "rigorously reviewed by our in-house editorial teams in collaboration with" the editors and reviewers it counts. The report does not state how many submissions were rejected, so the 4.2 million submissions and 795,000 articles do not give an acceptance rate. Submissions and publications in one year also do not match one to one.
Exhibit 1022 · Annual report
RELX Annual Report 2025, Market segments (Scientific, Technical & Medical)
In 2025, Elsevier received more than 4.2m article submissions, which were rigorously reviewed by our in-house editorial teams in collaboration with over 37,000 editors and over 1.9m expert reviewers around the world.
RELX reports Scientific, Technical & Medical (Elsevier) 2025 revenue of GBP 2,714m and adjusted operating profit of GBP 1,035m (a 38.1% ratio, computed here from the two printed figures; adjusted profit is RELX's own non-GAAP measure). The report states that the latest available long-term comparison showed Elsevier journal articles accounted for over 18% of global research output and 29% of citations, and that Elsevier published over 795,000 articles in 2025 after more than 4.2m submissions, with over 37,000 editors and over 1.9m reviewers. It does not state how many submissions were rejected.
- Source
- RELX PLC
- Date
- 2025 financial year (annual report published 2026)
- Quoted from
- Scientific, Technical & Medical section, p. 17 (corporate responsibility paragraph on peer review); 18% / 29% sentence p. 18; segment table (revenue 2,714; adjusted operating profit 1,035) p. 19 (printed page numbers)
- Grade
- Primary record
- Document
- https://www.relx.com/~/media/Files/R/RELX-Group/documents/reports/annual-reports/2025-ar-sections/relx-2025-market-segments.pdf
- Accessed
- 2026-11-10
- Cited by
- Findings citing this exhibit
Wiley recorded a decision about compromised articles in its annual report to the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Lancet recorded a decision about a failed paper in a retraction notice.
Wiley's fiscal 2024 Form 10-K states that the Hindawi special issues program was suspended in the third quarter of fiscal 2023 because certain special issues contained compromised articles. The Lancet's retraction notice of 5 June 2020 records that three authors requested retraction after the data vendor would not transfer the full dataset for an independent audit and the audit reviewers withdrew.
Wiley's 10-K states that it suspended the Hindawi special issues program. The Lancet notice states that three authors requested the retraction.
Evidence: Exhibit 1023, Exhibit 1024, Exhibit 1025
Mechanism: The middleman
Wiley's 10-K was filed on 26 June 2024. Its text states: "Hindawi’s special issues program was suspended in the third quarter of fiscal year 2023 due to the presence in certain special issues of compromised articles." The filing also reports that open access article output fell 23 percent in fiscal 2024 and that Research revenue fell 3 percent. It does not list the articles or the reviewers involved.
The Lancet paper was published online on 22 May 2020. In June 2020 the editors issued an expression of concern stating that serious scientific questions had been brought to their attention and that an independent audit, commissioned by authors not affiliated with the data vendor, was under way. The retraction notice of 5 June 2020, fourteen days after online publication, is signed by three of the four authors. It states that the vendor would not transfer the full dataset and that the reviewers withdrew. The notice describes no separate editorial decision.
Exhibit 1023 · SEC filing
John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2024 (Research segment, Hindawi)
Hindawi’s special issues program was suspended in the third quarter of fiscal year 2023 due to the presence in certain special issues of compromised articles.
Wiley's annual report to the SEC states that Hindawi's special issues program was suspended in the third quarter of fiscal 2023 because certain special issues contained compromised articles, that open access article output fell 23% in fiscal 2024, and that Research revenue fell 3%. The filing states what the publisher decided and its revenue effect; it does not list the articles or the reviewers involved.
- Source
- John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
- Date
- 26 June 2024
- Quoted from
- Item 7, Research segment results, fiscal 2024 vs 2023
- Grade
- Primary record
- Document
- https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/107140/000010714024000114/jwa-20240430.htm
- Accessed
- 2026-11-10
- Cited by
- Findings citing this exhibit
Exhibit 1024 · Journal notice
Expression of concern: Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis
we are issuing an Expression of Concern to alert readers to the fact that serious scientific questions have been brought to our attention.
The journal's editors issued an expression of concern on a paper published online on 22 May 2020, stating that important scientific questions had been raised about the data and that an independent audit commissioned by authors not affiliated with the data vendor was under way.
- Source
- The Lancet (editors)
- Date
- June 2020
- Quoted from
- Notice text (PubMed 32504543; PMC7269709)
- Grade
- Primary record
- Document
- https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31290-3
- Accessed
- 2026-11-10
- Cited by
- Findings citing this exhibit
Exhibit 1025 · Journal notice
Retraction: Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis
Due to this unfortunate development, the authors request that the paper be retracted.
The retraction notice is signed by three of the four authors. It states that the authors launched an independent third-party peer review of the data vendor, that the vendor would not transfer the full dataset, that the reviewers withdrew, and that the authors request retraction. The decision recorded in the notice is the authors' request; the notice does not describe a separate editorial decision.
- Source
- Mehra, Ruschitzka and Patel (authors), The Lancet 395(10240):1820
- Date
- 5 June 2020
- Quoted from
- Notice body (PMC7274621)
- Grade
- Primary record
- Document
- https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31324-6
- Accessed
- 2026-11-10
- Cited by
- Findings citing this exhibit
Hansard records the British state examining a publishing company. On 13 July 1971 the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry stated: "After very careful consideration, I have reached the conclusion that the public interest requires publication of the Inspector's Report." The report concerned Pergamon Press and associated companies. On 26 July 1971 a written answer stated: "The Department's intention is to defend the proceedings instituted against it by Mr. Maxwell and the British Printing Corporation Limited." Mr Maxwell and the Corporation had brought those proceedings.
On 25 October 1973 the Secretary of State stated that the inspectors' final report on Pergamon Press had been received on 16 August 1973. He stated that Mr Maxwell had made representations about the report and that the Department was considering them.
On 13 July 1971 the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry told the House of Commons that the public interest required publication of the inspector's report on Pergamon Press and associated companies. On 26 July 1971 a written answer stated that the Department's intention was to defend the proceedings brought against it by Mr Maxwell and the British Printing Corporation Limited. On 25 October 1973 the Secretary of State stated that the inspectors' final report had been received on 16 August 1973 and that Mr Maxwell's representations about it were being considered.
The Department of Trade and Industry published an inspector's report on Pergamon Press in 1971 and received the inspectors' final report in 1973.
Evidence: Exhibit 1026, Exhibit 1027, Exhibit 1029
On 8 May 2001 Lord Sainsbury of Turville stated that the Mirror Group Newspapers inspectors' report was published on 30 March 2001. He said the inspectors interviewed 180 witnesses, and he gave the cost as GBP 7 million for the accounting inspector's team and GBP 1.5 million for the legal inspector and legal costs. He said: "The inspectors rightly took the view that they should not undertake inquiries covering the same ground as those covered by the court cases."
On 8 May 2001 a minister told the House of Lords that the inspectors' report on Mirror Group Newspapers was published on 30 March 2001, that the investigation interviewed 180 witnesses at a cost of GBP 8.5 million excluding VAT, and that the inspectors took the view that they should not undertake inquiries covering the same ground as the court cases.
The inspectors stated in 2001 that they did not undertake inquiries covering the same ground as the court cases on Mirror Group Newspapers.
Evidence: Exhibit 1030
Exhibit 1026 · Parliamentary record
Pergamon Press (Report), written answer by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry
After very careful consideration, I have reached the conclusion that the public interest requires publication of the Inspector's Report.
The Secretary of State states that the public interest requires publication of the inspector's report on the affairs connected with Pergamon Press and associated companies, and that he intends to publish it that afternoon with only a typographical correction.
- Source
- UK House of Commons (Hansard), HC Deb 13 July 1971 vol 821 cc79-80W
- Date
- 13 July 1971
- Quoted from
- HC Deb 13 July 1971 vol 821 cc79-80W
- Grade
- Primary record
- Document
- https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/written_answers/1971/jul/13/pergamon-press-report
- Accessed
- 2026-11-10
- Cited by
- Findings citing this exhibit
- Note
- The text of the 1971 report itself was not retrieved; no quotation from it is used.
Exhibit 1027 · Parliamentary record
Pergamon Press Limited, written answer on action after the inspectors' report
The Department's intention is to defend the proceedings instituted against it by Mr. Maxwell and the British Printing Corporation Limited.
The Secretary of State states that further action depends on further inspectors' reports and that the Department's intention is to defend the proceedings brought against it by Mr Maxwell and the British Printing Corporation Limited.
- Source
- UK House of Commons (Hansard), HC Deb 26 July 1971 vol 822 cc17-18W
- Date
- 26 July 1971
- Quoted from
- HC Deb 26 July 1971 vol 822 cc17-18W
- Grade
- Primary record
- Document
- https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/written_answers/1971/jul/26/pergamon-press-limited
- Accessed
- 2026-11-10
- Cited by
- Findings citing this exhibit
Exhibit 1029 · Parliamentary record
Pergamon Press Ltd., written answer on receipt of the final report
The final report of the inspectors appointed to investigate the affairs of Pergamon Press Ltd. was received on 16th August 1973. Mr. Maxwell has made to the Department representations about the report which are at present being considered.
The Secretary of State states that the inspectors' final report on Pergamon Press was received on 16 August 1973 and that Mr Maxwell had made representations to the Department about it.
- Source
- UK House of Commons (Hansard), HC Deb 25 October 1973 vol 861 c703W
- Date
- 25 October 1973
- Quoted from
- HC Deb 25 October 1973 vol 861 c703W
- Grade
- Primary record
- Document
- https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/written_answers/1973/oct/25/pergamon-press-ltd
- Accessed
- 2026-11-10
- Cited by
- Findings citing this exhibit
Exhibit 1030 · Parliamentary record
Mirror Group Newspapers plc: Investigation, Lords oral question
The inspectors rightly took the view that they should not undertake inquiries covering the same ground as those covered by the court cases.
The Government minister states that the inspectors' investigation into Mirror Group Newspapers (report published 30 March 2001) interviewed 180 witnesses, that the accounting inspector's team cost GBP 7 million and the legal inspector and legal costs GBP 1.5 million (GBP 8.5 million excluding VAT), and that the inspectors did not cover the same ground as the court cases.
- Source
- UK House of Lords (Hansard), HL Deb 8 May 2001 vol 625 cc896-899
- Date
- 8 May 2001
- Quoted from
- HL Deb 8 May 2001 vol 625 c898, answer by Lord Sainsbury of Turville
- Grade
- Primary record
- Document
- https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/2001/may/08/mirror-group-newspapers-plc-investigation
- Accessed
- 2026-11-10
- Cited by
- Findings citing this exhibit
- Note
- The 2001 DTI report itself and the Serious Fraud Office trial record (acquittals January 1996) were not retrieved; the trial outcome is known here only from news reports.
3.2 Books and textbooks
A federal court described the trade-book market in a 2022 antitrust opinion on a proposed merger. The government sued to block the acquisition of Simon & Schuster by Penguin Random House, and the court enjoined it after a bench trial.
In its opinion of 15 November 2022 on the proposed merger of Penguin Random House and Simon & Schuster, a federal court found that the five largest trade publishers held nearly 60 percent of 2021 trade-book sales and that literary agents prioritize submitting manuscripts to their imprints because of their ability to pay.
The opinion's background findings state: "Together, the Big Five held nearly 60 percent of the market for the sale of trade books in 2021."
Evidence: Exhibit 1031
Mechanism: The middleman
The court also found that the Big Five had acquired other publishers to reach their position. It found that literary agents prioritize submitting manuscripts to Big Five imprints because of their ability to pay. The opinion concerns trade books and anticipated top-selling titles. It makes no finding about journals or textbooks.
Exhibit 1031 · Court opinion
United States v. Bertelsmann SE & Co. KGaA, Memorandum Opinion (as amended), No. 21-cv-2886 (D.D.C.)
Together, the Big Five held nearly 60 percent of the market for the sale of trade books in 2021
After a bench trial the court enjoined Penguin Random House's proposed acquisition of Simon & Schuster. The background findings describe the five largest trade publishers (the 'Big Five') as holding nearly 60 percent of 2021 trade-book sales, state that agents prioritize submitting manuscripts to Big Five imprints because of their ability to pay, and state that the Big Five acquired other publishers to reach their position. The opinion concerns trade books and anticipated top-selling titles, not journals or textbooks.
- Source
- U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Judge Florence Y. Pan)
- Date
- 15 November 2022
- Quoted from
- Mem. Op. (Doc. 196) p. 3, Background A
- Grade
- Primary record
- Document
- https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-dcd-1_21-cv-02886/pdf/USCOURTS-dcd-1_21-cv-02886-2.pdf
- Accessed
- 2026-11-10
- Cited by
- Findings citing this exhibit
- Note
- The government PDF is a scanned image; the quoted wording was checked against the page images (header 'Document 196 Filed 11/15/22 Page 3 of 80'). The statement that agents prioritize submitting manuscripts to Big Five imprints because of their ability to pay is on PDF page 7; the statement about acquiring other publishers is on page 4.
School textbooks pass through state approval. McGraw Hill describes itself in its 2026 annual report as a top-two K-12 provider serving about 91 percent of public K-12 districts. The report names Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Pearson, Savvas, Amplify and Cengage among its competitors.
McGraw Hill's Form 10-K filed 11 June 2026 states that its market is fairly concentrated and that its K-12 materials in California, Florida and Texas are subject to approval by state boards of education. Texas Education Code section 31.022 requires the State Board of Education to determine that instructional material is free from factual error before approving it, and California Education Code section 60200 has the State Board adopt at least five basic instructional materials per subject for kindergarten through grade 8.
The company's words on the market are "fairly concentrated, with a relatively small number of large competitors."
Evidence: Exhibit 1032, Exhibit 1033, Exhibit 1034
Mechanism: The middleman
The 10-K states that Florida, California and Texas have predetermined procurement patterns set by the state. It states: "In each state's decision, we face significant competition and our materials are subject to approvals by state boards of education or other authorities based on an evaluation of alignment to state academic standards and other criteria." The company therefore reports competition at each state decision and a state approval step.
Section 31.022 of the Texas Education Code provides: "Before approving instructional material, the board may review the material and must determine that the material is free from factual error and suitable for the subject and grade level for which the material is designed." The Board keeps a list of approved materials and may keep a list of rejected materials. Section 31.023 lets a district, a majority of Board members or a publisher request agency review. House Bill 1605 of 2023 repealed adjacent sections effective 13 June 2023, and earlier adoption procedures differ from the current text.
Section 60200 of the California Education Code provides that "The state board shall adopt basic instructional materials for use in kindergarten and grades 1 to 8, inclusive, for governing boards." The board adopts at least five basic materials per subject, and publishers may submit at most twice every eight years. Governing boards choose among the adopted materials.
Exhibit 1032 · SEC filing
McGraw Hill, Inc. Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2026
In each state’s decision, we face significant competition and our materials are subject to approvals by state boards of education or other authorities based on an evaluation of alignment to state academic standards and other criteria.
The company describes itself as a top-two K-12 provider serving about 91% of public K-12 districts and says its market is 'fairly concentrated, with a relatively small number of large competitors', naming Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Pearson, Savvas, Amplify, Cengage and others. It states that Florida, California and Texas have state-made predetermined procurement patterns and that its materials are subject to approval by state boards of education. Item 3 and notes describe 2025 Florida and Illinois complaints alleging pricing violations against the company and Savvas; those are allegations, not findings.
- Source
- McGraw Hill, Inc.
- Date
- 11 June 2026
- Quoted from
- Item 1A, risk factor on state purchasing cycles
- Grade
- Primary record
- Document
- https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1951070/000195107026000022/mh-20260331.htm
- Accessed
- 2026-11-10
- Cited by
- Findings citing this exhibit
Exhibit 1033 · Statute
Texas Education Code section 31.022, Substantive review of instructional materials by State Board of Education
Before approving instructional material, the board may review the material and must determine that the material is free from factual error and suitable for the subject and grade level for which the material is designed
The State Board of Education reviews instructional materials, must determine before approving that the material is free from factual error and suitable for the subject and grade level, and keeps a list of approved materials and may keep a list of rejected materials. Section 31.023 lets a district, a majority of Board members or a publisher request agency review. Sections adjacent to 31.022 were repealed effective 13 June 2023 by H.B. 1605; earlier adoption procedures differ.
- Source
- State of Texas (Legislature)
- Date
- as amended by H.B. 1605 (2023); text read 10 November 2026
- Quoted from
- Sec. 31.022(a)
- Grade
- Primary record
- Document
- https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/ED/htm/ED.31.htm
- Accessed
- 2026-11-10
- Cited by
- Findings citing this exhibit
- Note
- Read at texas.public.law (a mirror) because the official capitol.texas.gov page renders by script; confirm wording on the official site and capture the pre-2023 text for the history.
Exhibit 1034 · Statute
California Education Code section 60200, State adoption of basic instructional materials
The state board shall adopt basic instructional materials for use in kindergarten and grades 1 to 8, inclusive, for governing boards, subject to the following provisions
The State Board of Education adopts basic instructional materials for kindergarten and grades 1 to 8 in language arts, mathematics, science, social science and other subjects it designates, and adopts at least five basic materials per subject; submissions may be made at most twice every eight years. Governing boards choose among adopted materials.
- Source
- State of California (Legislature)
- Date
- 2025 version read 10 November 2026
- Quoted from
- Sec. 60200 (introductory clause)
- Grade
- Primary record
- Document
- https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=EDC§ionNum=60200
- Accessed
- 2026-11-10
- Cited by
- Findings citing this exhibit
- Note
- leginfo.legislature.ca.gov and cde.ca.gov block automated fetches; wording read at california.public.law. The governing-board-choice sentence and the history-social science adoptions were not read.
3.3 Wikipedia: the rules for sources
Volunteer editors write and amend Wikipedia's policy pages. Each page can be edited and carries a revision history, so the pages below are cited by archive capture date.
Wikipedia's policies base content on published, independent, reliable sources and presume a stand-alone article only for topics with significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Its perennial-sources page sorts sources into five statuses by community consensus. In the project's count of the page on 10 November 2026, the page had 497 rows: 472 carried a status icon (156 generally reliable, 112 no consensus, 148 generally unreliable and 56 deprecated) and 25 were blacklisted.
The Verifiability policy states: "Wikipedia's content is determined by published information rather than editors' beliefs, experiences, or previously unpublished ideas or information."
Evidence: Exhibit 1035, Exhibit 1036, Exhibit 1037, Exhibit 1038, Exhibit 1050
Mechanism: The middleman
The reliable-sources guideline states: "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." It says reliability depends on context and that no source is always reliable or always unreliable for everything. It refers case-by-case questions to the Reliable sources noticeboard. The notability guideline presumes a stand-alone article for a topic with significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, and says the presumption is not a guarantee. The captures are dated 1 and 2 January 2026.
The perennial-sources page was created on 28 July 2018 with the revision comment "Boldly creating a list of perennially discussed sources." It summarizes community consensus on frequently discussed sources under five statuses: generally reliable, no consensus, generally unreliable, deprecated and blacklisted. Each entry cites the noticeboard discussions or requests for comment that produced the status. The page calls itself non-exhaustive. Its legend defines Deprecated: "There is community consensus from a request for comment to deprecate the source. The source is considered generally unreliable, and use of the source is generally prohibited." Blacklisted sources are blocked technically through the spam blacklist after persistent abuse.
The project counted the page's rows on 10 November 2026 through the MediaWiki parse API. The page had 497 rows. Of these, 472 carried a status icon and 25 were blacklisted. The 472 divide into 156 generally reliable, 112 no consensus, 148 generally unreliable and 56 deprecated. Wikipedia publishes no such count, and the numbers change with every edit.
The 56 deprecated rows include state-run outlets, outlets the page describes as left or right, and non-news sites such as genealogy, music and travel sites.
Exhibit 1036 · Policy page
Wikipedia:Verifiability (policy)
Wikipedia's content is determined by published information rather than editors' beliefs, experiences, or previously unpublished ideas or information.
The policy states that content is determined by published information in a reliable source and not by editors' beliefs or unpublished ideas, even where an editor is sure something is true.
- Source
- English Wikipedia (community-edited policy)
- Date
- archive capture 1 January 2026
- Quoted from
- Lead, first paragraph
- Grade
- Primary record
- Document
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
- Accessed
- 2026-11-10
- Cited by
- Findings citing this exhibit
Exhibit 1035 · Policy page
Wikipedia:Reliable sources (content guideline)
Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
The guideline states that articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources, that reliability depends on context, and that no source is always reliable or always unreliable for everything. It labels itself a content guideline; the sourcing policy is Verifiability. It points to the Reliable sources noticeboard for case-by-case questions.
- Source
- English Wikipedia (community-edited guideline)
- Date
- archive capture 1 January 2026
- Quoted from
- Overview
- Grade
- Primary record
- Document
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources
- Accessed
- 2026-11-10
- Cited by
- Findings citing this exhibit
- Note
- Policy pages are community-edited and change; cite the capture date.
Exhibit 1037 · Policy page
Wikipedia:Notability (guideline)
A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
The guideline presumes a topic suitable for a stand-alone article when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, and says the presumption is not a guarantee.
- Source
- English Wikipedia (community-edited guideline)
- Date
- archive capture 2 January 2026
- Quoted from
- General notability guideline
- Grade
- Primary record
- Document
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability
- Accessed
- 2026-11-10
- Cited by
- Findings citing this exhibit
Exhibit 1038 · Policy page
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources (archive capture of 1 October 2026)
There is community consensus from a request for comment to deprecate the source. The source is considered generally unreliable, and use of the source is generally prohibited.
The page summarizes prior community consensus on frequently discussed sources under five statuses: generally reliable, no consensus, generally unreliable, deprecated (by request-for-comment consensus) and blacklisted (by the spam blacklist after persistent abuse, with edits blocked technically). It describes itself as non-exhaustive. Entries cite the noticeboard discussions or requests for comment that produced the status.
- Source
- English Wikipedia (community-edited information page)
- Date
- archive capture 1 October 2026
- Quoted from
- Status legend, Deprecated
- Grade
- Primary record
- Document
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources
- Accessed
- 2026-11-10
- Cited by
- Findings citing this exhibit
Exhibit 1050 · Dataset query
Tally of statuses in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, derived from the MediaWiki parse API on 10 November 2026
Method: fetched the rendered page through the MediaWiki parse API and counted table rows by the alt text of the status icon in each row. Of 472 rows with a status icon, 156 were generally reliable, 112 no consensus, 148 generally unreliable and 56 deprecated; a further 25 rows carry a Blacklisted icon, so 472 status rows plus 25 blacklisted rows equal 497. The deprecated rows include state-run outlets (for example RT, Sputnik and Global Times), sources described as left, right and non-partisan (for example the Daily Caller and Occupy Democrats), and non-news sites (for example genealogy, music and travel sites). Counts change with every edit.
- Source
- Lacuna Project derivation from English Wikipedia
- Date
- run 10 November 2026
- Grade
- Primary record
- Document
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=parse&page=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources&prop=text&format=json&formatversion=2
- Accessed
- 2026-11-10
- Cited by
- Findings citing this exhibit
- Note
- The tally is the project's own derivation of a live page, not a count published by Wikipedia. The page had 497 anchored rows: 472 status rows plus 25 blacklisted rows; the counts by status are exact for the capture date. Vault a saved copy and hash before publication.
The Daily Mail entry on the page states that the paper was the first source to be deprecated. The request for comment was opened on 7 January 2017. Volunteer closers posted the result on 8 February 2017.
A request for comment closed by volunteers on 8 February 2017 concluded that the Daily Mail is generally unreliable and its use as a reference generally prohibited, and the perennial-sources page's Daily Mail entry states that it was the first source to be deprecated. The page's definition of Deprecated in an archive capture of 17 January 2019 allows a deprecated source to be cited as a primary source when it is the topic of discussion, and the capture of 1 October 2026 does not carry that clause.
The closing statement reads: "Consensus has determined that the Daily Mail (including its online version, dailymail.co.uk) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist."
Evidence: Exhibit 1040, Exhibit 1039, Exhibit 1038
Mechanism: The middleman
The closing statement summarizes the arguments for deprecation as poor fact checking, sensationalism and fabrication. It summarizes three opposing arguments. The first holds that the paper is reliable for some subjects, the second that it was historically more reliable, and the third that the request singled out one source. The closers replied to each. The statement says a second request for comment upheld the result in 2019.
The page's definition of Deprecated changed between two captures. The capture of 17 January 2019 reads: "Despite this, the source may be cited as a primary source if it is the topic of discussion, and the source may be used under WP:ABOUTSELF." The capture of 1 October 2026 does not carry that clause and adds an edit filter warning.
Exhibit 1040 · Policy page
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 220, Daily Mail RfC (closing statement)
Consensus has determined that the Daily Mail (including its online version, dailymail.co.uk) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist.
A request for comment opened on 7 January 2017 closed on 8 February 2017 with a statement by three-plus volunteer closers that the Daily Mail is generally unreliable and generally prohibited as a reference. The closing statement summarizes the support arguments (poor fact checking, sensationalism, fabrication) and the three opposing arguments, and says a second RfC upheld the result in 2019. The Daily Mail entry on the perennial-sources page states that it was the first source to be deprecated. Contributor names are omitted here.
- Source
- English Wikipedia (reliable sources noticeboard; request for comment closed by volunteer editors)
- Date
- 8 February 2017
- Quoted from
- Archive top, result
- Grade
- Primary record
- Document
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_220#Daily_Mail_RfC
- Accessed
- 2026-11-10
- Cited by
- Findings citing this exhibit
Exhibit 1039 · Policy page
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources (archive capture of 17 January 2019)
Despite this, the source may be cited as a primary source if it is the topic of discussion, and the source may be used under WP:ABOUTSELF.
The page's definition of 'Deprecated' in January 2019 allows a deprecated source to be cited as a primary source if it is the topic of discussion; the 1 October 2026 capture does not carry that clause and adds an edit filter warning. The page was created on 28 July 2018 (first revision comment: 'Boldly creating a list of perennially discussed sources').
- Source
- English Wikipedia (community-edited information page)
- Date
- archive capture 17 January 2019
- Quoted from
- Status legend, Deprecated
- Grade
- Primary record
- Document
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources
- Accessed
- 2026-11-10
- Cited by
- Findings citing this exhibit
3.4 Wikipedia: editors and arbitration
Counsel for the Wikimedia Foundation wrote in 2013 that the community consists of "independent volunteers operating separately from the Wikimedia Foundation." The Foundation publishes the Terms of Use. Volunteers adopt the sourcing rules by discussion.
Volunteer editors banned Wiki-PR on 25 October 2013, and counsel for the Wikimedia Foundation wrote to the firm on 19 November 2013 that undisclosed paid advocacy editing violates the Terms of Use. The Foundation amended the Terms of Use on 16 June 2014 to require paid editors to disclose their affiliation, and on 31 August 2015 it reported that volunteer editors had blocked 381 accounts and deleted 210 articles in the Orangemoody investigation of undisclosed paid advocacy.
Volunteers adopted the 2013 ban. The letter of 2013, the 2014 amendment and the 2015 report are the Foundation's.
Evidence: Exhibit 1043, Exhibit 1044, Exhibit 1045
Mechanism: Managing the narrative
The three-page letter of 19 November 2013 reproduces the community ban adopted on 25 October 2013. Counsel states an opinion, based on evidence to date, that agents of the company used sockpuppets or meatpuppets to make articles appear written by unbiased sources. The letter states counsel's position and potential claims. It is not a court finding.
The Foundation amended the Terms of Use on 16 June 2014. The new subsection is titled "Paid Contributions without Disclosure." It requires paid editors to disclose their employer, client and affiliation. The Foundation states that the proposal drew 320,000 words of discussion and 6.3 million views, that the discussion was overwhelmingly supportive, and that individual projects may adopt alternative disclosure policies.
The report of 31 August 2015 states that volunteer editors blocked 381 accounts and deleted 210 articles. It calls the investigation "Orangemoody," the name volunteer editors used. It states that the edits were similar enough that the community believes one coordinated group made them. It also states that not all paid editing violates policy where the editor discloses affiliations. The Foundation says volunteers made the blocks and names no individual. Orangemoody was a community sockpuppet investigation with the Foundation commenting. It was not an Arbitration Committee case.
Exhibit 1043 · Correspondence
Letter from Cooley LLP (for the Wikimedia Foundation) to Wiki-PR, "Wiki-PR and Paid Advocacy Editing"
recently banned Wiki-PR and its agents from further editing the Wikipedia site. The ban, adopted on October 25, 2013, reads as follows:
Three-page letter published by the Foundation. Counsel states an opinion, based on evidence to date, that agents of the company used sockpuppets or meatpuppets to make articles appear written by unbiased sources, and that this violates the Terms of Use. The letter reproduces the community ban adopted on 25 October 2013 and states that the community consists of volunteers operating separately from the Foundation. The letter states counsel's position and potential claims; it is not a court finding.
- Source
- Cooley LLP on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation
- Date
- 19 November 2013
- Quoted from
- Page 2, paragraph 3
- Grade
- Primary record
- Document
- https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/6/6b/2013-11-19_C%26D_letter_to_WikiPR_from_Cooley.pdf
- Accessed
- 2026-11-10
- Cited by
- Findings citing this exhibit
- Note
- The PDF is an image; the quoted wording was checked against the page images. The counsel's opinion sentence, the Terms of Use statement and the statement that the community consists of 'independent volunteers operating separately from the Wikimedia Foundation' are also on page 2.
Exhibit 1044 · Institutional statement
Making a change to our Terms of Use: Requirements for disclosure (Wikimedia blog)
If you are paid to edit, you will need to disclose your paid editing to comply with the new Terms of Use.
The Foundation announces a new Terms of Use subsection, 'Paid Contributions without Disclosure', requiring paid editors to disclose their employer, client and affiliation. It says the proposal drew 320,000 words of discussion and 6.3 million views, that the discussion was overwhelmingly supportive, and that individual projects may adopt alternative disclosure policies.
- Source
- Wikimedia Foundation (General Counsel)
- Date
- 16 June 2014
- Quoted from
- "What's changing?" bullet list
- Grade
- Primary record
- Document
- https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/06/16/change-terms-of-use-requirements-for-disclosure/
- Accessed
- 2026-11-10
- Cited by
- Findings citing this exhibit
Exhibit 1045 · Institutional statement
Hundreds of "black hat" English Wikipedia accounts blocked following investigation (Wikimedia blog)
After weeks of investigation, volunteer editors on English Wikipedia announced today that they blocked 381 user accounts for “black hat” editing.
The Foundation reports that volunteer editors blocked 381 accounts and deleted 210 articles after an investigation (called 'Orangemoody' by editors) into undisclosed paid advocacy. It says the edits were similar enough that the community believes one coordinated group made them, recalls the October 2013 blocks of Wiki-PR accounts and the cease and desist letter, and says not all paid editing violates policy where affiliations are disclosed. The Foundation states the volunteers made the blocks; it names no individual.
- Source
- Wikimedia Foundation
- Date
- 31 August 2015
- Quoted from
- First paragraph
- Grade
- Primary record
- Document
- https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/08/31/wikipedia-accounts-blocked-paid-advocacy/
- Accessed
- 2026-11-10
- Cited by
- Findings citing this exhibit
- Note
- Orangemoody was a community sockpuppet investigation with the Foundation commenting, not an Arbitration Committee case.
The Arbitration Committee is a body of the English Wikipedia community that decides conduct cases. Its 2021 COVID-19 motion is the decision here that touches sourcing.
On 16 June 2021 the Arbitration Committee replaced community sanctions on COVID-19 articles with discretionary sanctions by an 8-1-1 motion that contains no findings of fact and no ruling on which sources count.
The 2021 motion concerns discretionary sanctions on COVID-19 articles.
Evidence: Exhibit 1041
Mechanism: The middleman, Managing the narrative
The 2021 request concerned COVID-19 articles. The Committee accepted it and resolved it the same day by motion: "The community COVID-19 general sanctions are hereby rescinded and are replaced by standard discretionary sanctions, which are authorized for all edits about, and all articles related to, COVID-19, broadly construed." The motion passed 8 to 1 with one abstention. The Committee redesignated the sanctions a contentious topic on 14 December 2022, by 10 to 0. Statements in the request disagreed on whether the biomedical sourcing guideline was applied too strictly or correctly. The decision page contains remedies only, with no principles and no findings of fact.
Exhibit 1041 · Arbitration record
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/COVID-19 (resolved by motion)
The community COVID-19 general sanctions are hereby rescinded and are replaced by standard discretionary sanctions, which are authorized for all edits about, and all articles related to, COVID-19, broadly construed.
The Committee accepted a case request about COVID-19 articles and resolved it the same day by motion, passed 8 to 1 with 1 abstention, replacing community general sanctions with standard discretionary sanctions (later redesignated a contentious topic on 14 December 2022, 10 to 0). The decision page contains remedies only: no principles and no findings of fact. Statements in the request disagreed with each other on whether the biomedical sourcing guideline was applied too strictly or correctly; the Committee made no ruling on that.
- Source
- English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee
- Date
- 16 June 2021
- Quoted from
- Motion: Discretionary sanctions (June 2021), remedy (i)
- Grade
- Primary record
- Document
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/COVID-19
- Accessed
- 2026-11-10
- Cited by
- Findings citing this exhibit
- Note
- Parties named in the request are omitted; no statement about any editor is used.
3.5 Reddit
Two actors decide what stays on Reddit: the company and the volunteer moderators of each community. Reddit's May 2015 announcement states that volunteer moderators determine and uphold the rules in their communities. Reddit states each decision below as its own, with its own reasons. Chapter 7 of the Politics report covers documented government contacts with platforms.
Reddit's content policy captured on 11 September 2015 lists quarantining and banning of communities among its enforcement options and states that Reddit does not prescribe moderators' use of its tools, and on 29 June 2020 Reddit announced that it was banning about 2,000 subreddits, including r/The_Donald and r/ChapoTrapHouse. A peer-reviewed study found that quarantining r/TheRedPill and r/The_Donald cut new-user influx by 79.5% and 58% while existing users' misogyny and racism did not change.
The 2015 policy and the 2020 announcement give the company's own account of its enforcement.
Evidence: Exhibit 1051, Exhibit 1052, Exhibit 1053, Exhibit 1058
Mechanism: The middleman
On 14 May 2015 Reddit stated: "Because of this, we are changing our practices to prohibit attacks and harassment of individuals through reddit with the goal of preventing them." The announcement cites a survey of over 15,000 redditors and says the change would have no immediately noticeable impact on more than 99.99 percent of users. The policy captured on 11 September 2015 lists enforcement options that include "Adding restrictions to Reddit communities, such as adding NSFW tags or Quarantining" and "Banning of Reddit communities." It states: "Reddit provides tools to aid moderators, but does not prescribe their usage."
On 29 June 2020 Reddit announced a rule against promoting hate based on identity or vulnerability. It stated: "Alongside the change to the content policy, we are initially banning about 2000 subreddits, the vast majority of which are inactive. Of these communities, about 200 have more than 10 daily users. Both r/The_Donald and r/ChapoTrapHouse were included." Reddit gives its reasons for each community in terms of rule-breaking content and, it says, moderators' refusal to meet expectations. The date is taken from a capture of 2 July 2020.
A peer-reviewed study used over 85 million posts and causal inference methods on r/TheRedPill and r/The_Donald. It reports that "new user influx to TRP and TD decreased by 79.5% and 58%, respectively." The quarantine did not change existing users' misogyny and racism levels.
Exhibit 1051 · Institutional statement
Promote ideas, protect people (Reddit blog)
Because of this, we are changing our practices to prohibit attacks and harassment of individuals through reddit with the goal of preventing them.
Reddit announces a change to prohibit harassment of individuals, defines harassment, says volunteer moderators determine and uphold rules in their subreddits, cites a survey of over 15,000 redditors, and states the change would have no immediately noticeable impact on more than 99.99% of users.
- Source
- Reddit, Inc.
- Date
- 14 May 2015
- Quoted from
- Body, paragraph beginning "Because of this"
- Grade
- Primary record
- Document
- https://redditblog.com/2015/05/14/promote-ideas-protect-people/
- Accessed
- 2026-11-10
- Cited by
- Findings citing this exhibit
Exhibit 1052 · Policy page
Reddit Content Policy (archive capture of 11 September 2015)
Reddit provides tools to aid moderators, but does not prescribe their usage.
The policy lists unwelcome content and prohibited behavior and lists enforcement options including 'Adding restrictions to Reddit communities, such as adding NSFW tags or Quarantining' and 'Banning of Reddit communities'. It states that communities may have their own rules and moderators.
- Source
- Reddit, Inc.
- Date
- archive capture 11 September 2015
- Quoted from
- Paragraph 7, Moderation within communities
- Grade
- Primary record
- Document
- https://www.reddit.com/help/contentpolicy/
- Accessed
- 2026-11-10
- Cited by
- Findings citing this exhibit
- Note
- The 5 August 2015 r/announcements post that introduced quarantining was not read: the archived copy is a script shell. Replace with that post or a text capture.
Exhibit 1053 · Institutional statement
Update to Our Content Policy (r/announcements)
Alongside the change to the content policy, we are initially banning about 2000 subreddits, the vast majority of which are inactive. Of these communities, about 200 have more than 10 daily users. Both r/The_Donald and r/ChapoTrapHouse were included.
Reddit announces a Rule 1 against promoting hate based on identity or vulnerability, and states it is initially banning about 2000 subreddits, mostly inactive, including r/The_Donald and r/ChapoTrapHouse. It gives its reasons for each in terms of rule-breaking content and moderators' refusal to meet expectations, and says it does not generally link to banned communities.
- Source
- Reddit, Inc. (post by the company's chief executive account)
- Date
- 29 June 2020
- Quoted from
- Body, paragraph beginning "Alongside the change"
- Grade
- Primary record
- Document
- https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/hi3oht/update_to_our_content_policy/
- Accessed
- 2026-11-10
- Cited by
- Findings citing this exhibit
- Note
- Date taken from the capture of 2 July 2020, in which the post is "2 days ago"; confirm 29 June 2020 on the post page.
Exhibit 1058 · Peer-reviewed study
Quarantined! Examining the Effects of a Community-Wide Moderation Intervention on Reddit
new user influx to TRP and TD decreased by 79.5% and 58%, respectively.
Two case studies of r/TheRedPill and r/The_Donald using over 85 million posts and causal inference methods. The quarantine reduced new-user influx while existing users' misogyny and racism levels did not change.
- Source
- Chandrasekharan, Jhaver, Bruckman and Gilbert (arXiv 2009.11483; ACM CSCW 2020 per the authors' listing, venue to be confirmed)
- Date
- 2020
- Quoted from
- Abstract
- Grade
- Peer-reviewed
- Document
- https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.11483
- Accessed
- 2026-11-10
- Cited by
- Findings citing this exhibit
The 2023 API change reached the moderators' tools and the third-party apps that readers used. Reddit's S-1 describes the moderators' response.
Reddit stated on 9 June 2023 that it would charge $0.24 per 1,000 API calls above free limits from 1 July 2023. Its Form S-1 of 22 February 2024 states that in June 2023 moderators of certain communities inhibited normal operations, in many cases in violation of site-wide rules, and that this has not historically had a material impact.
The company states the price, the effective date and its reason, and its prospectus states the moderators' action in its own terms.
Evidence: Exhibit 1054, Exhibit 1055
Mechanism: The middleman
The 9 June 2023 post states: "Reddit needs to be a self-sustaining business, and to do that, we can no longer subsidize commercial entities that require large-scale data use." It states that updated Data API Terms replaced the old terms on 19 June 2023. From 1 July 2023 free access is 100 queries per minute with OAuth and 10 without. The third-party apps Apollo, Reddit is Fun and Sync would close, and the moderation tools RES, ContextMod and Toolbox keep free access.
The S-1 states: "in response to certain changes to our API policies in June 2023, moderators of certain communities inhibited normal operations of the communities they operate, in many cases in violation of our site-wide rules." It also states that some moderators of large communities or many communities may be able to leverage influence to disrupt their communities or others.
Exhibit 1054 · Institutional statement
Addressing the community about changes to our API (r/reddit)
Reddit needs to be a self-sustaining business, and to do that, we can no longer subsidize commercial entities that require large-scale data use.
Reddit states that on 18 April it announced changes to API access, that updated Data API Terms replaced the old terms on 19 June 2023, that free access is 100 queries per minute with OAuth and 10 without from 1 July 2023, that higher usage costs $0.24 per 1,000 calls, that third-party apps Apollo, Reddit is Fun and Sync would close, and that moderation tools such as RES, ContextMod and Toolbox keep free access.
- Source
- Reddit, Inc. (post by the company's chief executive account)
- Date
- 9 June 2023
- Quoted from
- Second paragraph
- Grade
- Primary record
- Document
- https://www.reddit.com/r/reddit/comments/145bram/addressing_the_community_about_changes_to_our_api/
- Accessed
- 2026-11-10
- Cited by
- Findings citing this exhibit
- Note
- The 18 April 2023 announcement and the blackout participation counts were not read.
Exhibit 1055 · SEC filing
Reddit, Inc. Form S-1 registration statement (risk factors and business description)
For example, in response to certain changes to our API policies in June 2023, moderators of certain communities inhibited normal operations of the communities they operate, in many cases in violation of our site-wide rules.
The company states that it relies on volunteer moderators, that in December 2023 it had an average of over 60,000 daily active moderators, that moderators of certain communities inhibited normal operations in June 2023 in many cases in violation of site-wide rules, that this has not historically had a material impact, and that some moderators who moderate large communities or many communities may be able to leverage influence to disrupt their communities or others. It states that its Data API terms changed in 2023 to enforce rate limits.
- Source
- Reddit, Inc.
- Date
- 22 February 2024
- Quoted from
- Risk Factors, "We rely on an approach to content moderation that depends on Redditors who volunteer to be moderators", p. 33
- Grade
- Primary record
- Document
- https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1713445/000162828024006294/reddits-1q423.htm
- Accessed
- 2026-11-10
- Cited by
- Findings citing this exhibit
Reddit's transparency report for July to December 2023 separates removals by volunteer moderators from removals by company admins.
Reddit reports that from July to December 2023 moderators removed 1.9% and admins 1.8% of all content created, and that admins banned 640,685 communities: 456,849 (71%) for spam and 183,836 for non-spam violations, 92% of the non-spam bans because the community was unmoderated. Reddit's Form S-1 reports an average of over 60,000 daily active volunteer moderators in December 2023, and a peer study of 126 subreddits found that invisible work is a median 43% of human moderator labor.
The report counts 3.7 percent of content as removed and 22.3 percent of removals, excluding spam, as made by admins.
Evidence: Exhibit 1056, Exhibit 1055, Exhibit 1057
Mechanism: The middleman
The report states that admins banned 640,685 communities. Of these, 456,849 (71 percent) were banned for spam and 183,836 for non-spam violations. Of the non-spam bans, 92 percent were for communities that were unmoderated. The report states that moderator removals include removals under each community's own rules and that admin removals cover only the Content Policy, so the two are not comparable. It reports 434 Moderator Code of Conduct investigations, which led to 1,711 outreach messages and 7,118 enforcement actions, including 92 community bans.
The peer study of moderator labor analyzed private moderator logs for 126 subreddits and over 900 moderator accounts, covering 3 million actions. It reports: "Across subreddits, the share of invisible work for human moderators ranges from 9% to 94% with a median of 43%." The subreddits were those whose moderators volunteered logs, so they are not a random sample. Reddit's S-1 reports an average of over 60,000 daily active volunteer moderators in December 2023. The authors conclude that analysis of visible actions alone understates human moderation labor.
Exhibit 1056 · Institutional statement
Transparency Report: July to December 2023
From July to December 2023, 3.7% of the total content created on Reddit was removed across all content types (1.9% by mods and 1.8% by admins).
Reddit reports that 3.7% of content created was removed (1.9% by moderators, 1.8% by admins); that admins performed about 22.3% of removals excluding spam; that admins banned 640,685 communities, 456,849 (71%) of them for spam and 183,836 for non-spam violations, 92% of the non-spam bans because the community was unmoderated; and that 434 Moderator Code of Conduct investigations led to 1,711 outreach messages and 7,118 enforcement actions including 92 community bans. Moderator removals include removals under each community's own rules and are not comparable to admin removals, which cover only the Content Policy.
- Source
- Reddit, Inc.
- Date
- April 2024 (report period July-December 2023)
- Quoted from
- Content removals, Chart 2 text
- Grade
- Primary record
- Document
- https://www.redditinc.com/policies/transparency-report-july-to-december-2023
- Accessed
- 2026-11-10
- Cited by
- Findings citing this exhibit
Exhibit 1057 · Peer-reviewed study
All That's Happening behind the Scenes: Putting the Spotlight on Volunteer Moderator Labor in Reddit
Across subreddits, the share of invisible work for human moderators ranges from 9% to 94% with a median of 43%.
Analysis of private moderator logs for 126 subreddits and over 900 moderator accounts (3 million actions; 39 of 967 accounts classified as bots, which did 73% of 25,812 daily actions). Visible-only analysis understates human moderation labor.
- Source
- Li, Hecht and Chancellor (arXiv 2205.14529; published at ICWSM 2022 per the authors' listing, venue to be confirmed)
- Date
- 2022
- Quoted from
- Results, RQ on invisible work
- Grade
- Peer-reviewed
- Document
- https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.14529
- Accessed
- 2026-11-10
- Cited by
- Findings citing this exhibit
- Note
- Subreddits were those whose moderators volunteered logs; not a random sample.
3.6 What each source states
Each rule above has a dated origin. Wiley and RELX report to investors and regulators. The Texas and California legislatures wrote the textbook statutes. Wikipedia's volunteers reached the 2017 Daily Mail result, the 2013 Wiki-PR ban and the 2015 Orangemoody blocks through the community's own procedures. Reddit announced its content policies in 2015 and 2020 and its API terms in 2023.
| Source | What the record shows | Limits the record states |
|---|---|---|
| Journals | Five publishers produced over half of indexed papers in 2013 (3.1). Elsevier received 4.2 million submissions and published 795,000 articles in 2025 (3.2). | The humanities stayed near 20 percent. Elsevier reports a 29 percent citation share against an 18 percent output share. The report gives no rejection count. The Hindawi and Lancet records show publishers and authors acting on failed material (3.3). |
| Books and textbooks | Five houses held nearly 60 percent of trade-book sales, and agents submit to them first (3.6). Texas and California give a state board the approval step, and Texas may list rejected materials (3.7). | The court enjoined the merger. McGraw Hill reports competition at each state decision. California adopts at least five materials per subject, and governing boards choose among them. |
| Wikipedia sources | A deprecated source's use is "generally prohibited," and 56 rows carry the status (3.8). The Daily Mail result prohibits it as a reference (3.9). The 2019 primary-source clause is absent in 2026. | The page calls itself non-exhaustive, and the guideline says no source is always reliable or always unreliable. The deprecated rows include state-run outlets, outlets the page describes as left or right, and non-news sites. The 2021 motion made no ruling on sources (3.11). |
| Reddit, company | Reddit banned about 2,000 subreddits in 2020 and 640,685 communities in the second half of 2023, 71 percent of them for spam. Quarantining cut new-user influx by 79.5 and 58 percent (3.12). | The vast majority of the 2020 bans were inactive communities. Of the 183,836 non-spam bans in 2023, 92 percent were for unmoderated communities. Reddit reports 3.7 percent of content removed (3.14). |
| Reddit, moderators | Moderators removed 1.9 percent of content, and invisible work is a median 43 percent of their labor (3.14). | Moderator removals include removals under each community's own rules and are not comparable to admin removals. The studied subreddits were those whose moderators volunteered logs. |
Key findings
- Five publishers produced more than half of papers indexed in the Web of Science in 2013, up from about one-fifth in natural and medical sciences in 1973 (3.1).
- RELX reported GBP 2,714m revenue and GBP 1,035m adjusted operating profit for Elsevier in 2025, and gives submission, article, editor and reviewer counts but no rejection count (3.2).
- Wiley's 10-K records the suspension of the Hindawi special issues program, and The Lancet notice records the authors' request to retract (3.3).
- Hansard records the publication of a 1971 inspector's report on Pergamon Press, the Department's defense of proceedings brought by Mr Maxwell and the British Printing Corporation, and a 1973 final report (3.4).
- Hansard records a 2001 minister's statement that the Mirror Group Newspapers inspectors did not cover the ground of the court cases (3.5).
- A federal court found that the five largest trade publishers held nearly 60 percent of 2021 trade-book sales (3.6).
- McGraw Hill reports a fairly concentrated market and state board approval, and Texas and California statutes give state boards the approval step (3.7).
- Wikipedia's perennial-sources page sorts sources into five statuses by consensus: 472 rows carry a status, including 56 deprecated, and 25 rows are blacklisted (3.8).
- The Daily Mail entry states that the paper was the first source deprecated, and the page's definition of Deprecated dropped a primary-source clause between 2019 and 2026 (3.9).
- Volunteers banned Wiki-PR in 2013, the Terms of Use required paid-editing disclosure in 2014, and volunteers blocked 381 accounts in 2015 (3.10).
- The Arbitration Committee replaced community sanctions on COVID-19 articles with discretionary sanctions in 2021 and made no ruling on sources (3.11).
- Reddit's policy lists quarantine and community bans, the company banned about 2,000 subreddits in 2020, and quarantining cut new-user influx (3.12).
- Reddit's S-1 states that moderators inhibited normal operations during the June 2023 API protest, in many cases in violation of site-wide rules (3.13).
- Reddit reports 640,685 community bans in the second half of 2023, 71 percent for spam, and 92 percent of the 183,836 non-spam bans for unmoderated communities (3.14).