The IUCN Red List is the most extensive source of information on the global extinction risk including over 157000 species. The sheer scale of this initiative presents challenges in data standards and reporting, especially given that legacy issues may reduce accuracy. Here, we assess the bibliographic underpinnings of Red List assessments for five taxa with fairly complete assessments (four terrestrial vertebrate and one invertebrate group, including 41647 species). We assess the number of publications referenced, their age, their specificity, and use of primary data. Body-size and popularity are then explored as potential drivers of bibliographic trends. Disturbingly, many references are old and general (especially in smaller and less popular taxa), with many lacking specific references (e.g., only 1.3% of Odonata species have species-specific references). Public data are virtually never mentioned (GBIF is cited once in Odonata and Reptiles) and private databases are often cited. Furthermore, the use of data for mapping of species remains completely opaque. Better methods and standards are urgently needed for data inclusion, wider participation, mapping, and data citation if the Red List is to fulfil its remit.

The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species is an extinction risk assessment tool that has guided species conservation over the last five decades. However, as wildlife scientists and conservationists, we argue that its influence on the global conservation agenda can hinder effective species conservation efforts. Here, we review the limitations of the Red List and its misuse in priority setting, which can overlook local and regional contexts. This can result in improper allocation of conservation resources, especially in the Global South, where financial resources are limited. In particular, funds directed towards red-listed species may fail to address a broader range of conservation priorities. We also contend that extinction risk is insufficient for guiding conservation efforts and recommend broadening conservation planning and decision-making beyond reliance on the Red List. Thus, for a more inclusive and decentralized approach, we summarize guidelines for guiding species conservation at appropriate ecological, spatial, and taxonomic scales. Finally, we encourage more collaborative efforts and stakeholder engagement for the setting of conservation priorities and efficient funding allocation.