Wikipedia:WikiProject WikiFundi Content/Help:Evaluating Articles and Sources

This page explores how to read Wikipedia articles, and potential sources, with a critical eye. There is an online version of it at the outreach dashboard that you can access here (https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/training/editing-wikipedia/evaluating-articles).

In this section, we'll explore how to read Wikipedia articles, and potential sources, with a critical eye.

One of the most important skills you can apply to Wikipedia is how to think critically about information.

Critical thinking is important when reading any source of information. In this module, we'll review how to think about the material you read on Wikipedia, but also how to evaluate the material you contribute to Wikipedia.

What makes a good article?

You've probably already heard the adage that Wikipedia isn't a reliable source of information. Maybe hundreds of people work on an article, fact-checking and reviewing claims and references. Maybe only one person has written it, using just one, biased, source. Or maybe someone has gone by and added text to promote their business or a client.

With so many possibilities, how can you tell if the information you find on Wikipedia is any good at all?

Let's look at some of the ways Wikipedians evaluate the quality of articles.

Evaluating Article Quality

An important tool for evaluating a Wikipedia article is to look at its quality rating.

Wikipedia articles are constantly being improved, and all at different rates. Some rival the best encyclopedias; others are out of date or incomplete.

Volunteers will review articles and leave a rating on the Talk page. You can find this by clicking "Talk" at the top right of the article text.

The best articles have been evaluated as "Good" or "Featured" articles. These are the best that Wikipedia has to offer, and the rating reflects a shared view of many Wikipedians.

"Start" or "Stub" class articles aren't considered as reliable, or simply don't provide a very strong overview of the topic. These are great articles to work on, because there's lots you can do, and you can quickly make a dramatic impact.

Elements of quality articles

The best articles share certain qualities, which can serve as a model for you to strive for in your own work:

• A clear, easy-to-understand lead section, that is, the overview at the start of the article.
• A clear structure with several headings and subheadings arranged chronologically or by themes, with images or diagrams when appropriate.
• Balanced coverage of many aspects of the subject; with more important viewpoints getting more prominence in the article.
• Neutral coverage, written without bias toward a particular point of view, and representing disagreements according to their representation in reliable sources.
• Reliable sources are used throughout the article. For example, references to NASA rather than relying on an amateur's blog for information about Mars.

Elements of not-so-great articles

You'll want to read Wikipedia critically to decide for yourself if you trust it. Here's some signs that the article may not be so great:

• Warning banners. Often these make a statement about the article's reliability, though sometimes it's simply a suggestion for improvement. Make a note and read accordingly.
• Are there language problems in the lead? For example, a very short lead might indicate that the article was written through staggered contributions, and could use a rewrite to tie it together.
• Are there value statements, such as "the best" or "the most important"? Those are flags that it's written to persuade, or at least, not properly referenced.
• Are there references to unnamed sources of information, such as "some people say," or "many believe"? Can you answer the question, "Who said that?"
• Are there very few references or citations? Are the citations from good, reliable publishers, or are they from questionable websites or publishers with a clear bias?
• Are some sections longer than others, despite being equally (or less) important? Are relevant sections missing completely?

Citations

(Here you can read about citations in more depth)

Now that you know how to evaluate a Wikipedia article's quality, you should have a good sense of the kind of thing you should be contributing to the articles you work on.

A key aspect of good articles is good sourcing. Everything you read on Wikipedia should come from a reliable source.

Why cite?

Everything you write on Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable source.

Wikipedians are working to create an accurate encyclopedia. Adding sources means that your work can be fact-checked by these editors.

Editors (yourself included) can challenge unreferenced statements by adding a tag in WikiCode, which adds a [citation needed] tag to the statement. Some editors remove unreferenced material on sight.

When should you cite?

In general, you should be citing at least once per paragraph you contribute to Wikipedia, but any quotations, hard facts (such as statistics) and controversial claims must be cited.

Basically, whenever you add information to an article, be sure to include references.

What's not a good source?

Other sources may be tempting and easy to find, but should be avoided.

Poor sources include:

• Blog posts and social media
• Press releases and promotional material
• Official websites
• Self-published materials

While it can be useful to run a web search to help you find good sources (such as books or scholarly articles), most search results won't be useful in and of themselves.

Watch out for: Close paraphrasing

When you find a good source, it's important to share what you've found without plagiarising or violating the source's copyright.

Paraphrasing your sources without plagiarizing them takes some practice. It can be easy to unconsciously mimic the structure and word choice of the original source.

Copying words, structure, or phrases from the original source — even when cited to that source — violates Wikipedia’s copyright policies and is a form of plagiarism.

The best way to avoid this is to find information from a variety of good sources, make sure you really understand the information, and then write it using your own words.

Example of close paraphrasing

Here's an example of "close paraphrasing."

Original text:

Because the weather forecast called for rain, the league decided to switch the location of the game to an indoor facility.

Close paraphrased text, not acceptable on Wikipedia:

The league switched the game’s location to an indoor facility due to a weather forecast calling for rain.

Acceptable text:

Forecasted rain caused the league to move the game indoors.

Copyright

Copyright is one of the reasons why close paraphrasing is not a good idea. Here you can read more about copyright in more detail.

Everything on Wikipedia is free to use. That means anything you put on Wikipedia has to be free to share, too. Copyrighted materials, including lengthy passages from books, illustrations, and photographs, don't belong on Wikipedia. This is true even if you cite the material and give proper credit to the author.

The exception is for work that is so old, it's not under copyright anymore — we call this "public domain." Some works are released to the public under a free license. Those are allowed, too.

In those cases, you still have to make sure you cite the source of the information, and show where the author has released it under a free license (that is, link directly to the license).

Note, however, that lengthy quotations usually aren't appropriate, anyway. It's best to paraphrase the information into your own words.

Tips on plagiarism

Material in your sandbox is still subject to Wikipedia’s policies, so do not copy and paste information from your sources into your sandbox. Start by taking notes of key concepts, not phrases, from your sources, noting where each came from. Write the draft from your notes rather than from the original source, so you are not unconsciously mimicking the original author’s structure or diction. The more sources you use, the better you’ll understand the topic, which can help you paraphrase and summarize it in your own words.

How to: Add a citation with WikiCode

So, you have a solid paragraph drawn from a reliable source. How do you let other editors know where to look to verify your information?

First, if it's a new article, let's look at how to add a References section to the article using WikiCode.

You can access WikiCode through the "Edit source" option on the page.

Then, follow these instructions:

Check that the bottom of the page has a "Notes" or "References" section. If not, type: ==Notes== Check that the Notes section either has the text {{reflist}} or <references />. If not, type: {{reflist}}. This determines where your references will appear on the page. Now click after the text you would like to create a reference for. Now type in the <ref> tag before your reference and type </ref> after your reference. Wiki software will automatically add your inline reference number.

How to: Add a citation with VisualEditor

Let's try adding citations through VisualEditor. You may want to open up a sandbox page to follow along.

Click "edit" above the section or article you want to edit.

Within VisualEditor's toolbar, you'll find the "Cite" button. You can simply paste a URL, and the VisualEditor will try to sort out all of the fields you need. Be sure to review it, however, and apply missing fields manually (if you know them). You can also add books, journals, news, and websites manually. That opens up a quick guide for inputting your citations.

If the page already contains a citation you want to use again, you can!

To re-use an existing reference, place your cursor in the body of the text where you want to add the new reference for that citation. Then open the "Cite" menu and find the "Re-use" item.

To edit an existing reference, use the "edit" button to open VisualEditor. Click on the bracketed number for the source you want to edit. You will see an icon for the type of reference (book, web, news, etc.) and an "Edit" button to the right.

Clicking on the "Edit" button will open a dialog where you can do exactly that.

Remember to leave a description of your edit in the edit summary, such as "added reference," and then click "Save."

If you have internet access, you can view these tutorials:

• Wikipedia editing basics: Citing sources (part 1) on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2HFdEtYDyc
• Wikipedia editing basics: Citing sources (part 2) on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_a9fBc13b4&feature=youtu.be

Reading history

So now you know how to contribute good citations to an article. Let's quickly look at what happens if you come back, and see that someone has made an edit to your page.

You can see how an article has evolved over time by clicking the "View history" link at the top of every article.

When you open the "View History" page, you'll see a list of recent changes to the article, with some comments about what other editors have done.

You can compare histories between articles by clicking on the buttons next to each line.

Then select the "compare history" button at the top.

Past versions

You'll see two side by side sections. The first is the original, the second is what was changed.

Spot the difference? The section about "And the Wind Whispered" was removed, because it wasn't properly cited to a reliable source.

You can use these comparisons to see what an editor has done to an article you're working on. It's also how your instructor can see what you've contributed to an article, even if another editor removes it. That's why you should never panic if your contributions get removed!