Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.[1]
This page is a guideline, not a policy. Relevant policies that deal with sources are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research, and biographies of living people.
Reliable sources edit
From Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources:
| “ | Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.[2] Reliable sources are necessary both to substantiate material within articles and to give credit to authors and publishers in order to avoid plagiarism and copyright violations. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources.
All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views and fringe theories need not be included, except in articles devoted to them. In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text. For a guideline discussing the reliability of particular types of sources, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS). Because policies take precedence over guidelines, in the case of an inconsistency between this page and that one, this page has priority, and WP:RS should be updated accordingly. To discuss the reliability of specific sources, consult the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. |
” |
Other relevant policies edit
Wikipedia does not publish original research edit
Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. Material added to articles must be directly and explicitly supported by the cited sources.
Biographies of living persons edit
Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons, for legal reasons and in order to be fair. Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material immediately if it's about a living person, and do not move it to the talk page. This applies to any material related to living persons on any page in any namespace, not just the article space. Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalists, we are an encyclopedia.[3]
Aspects of reliability edit
Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made.
Scholarship edit
Wikipedia relies heavily upon the established literature created by scientists, scholars and researchers around the world. Items that fit this criterion are usually considered reliable. However, they may be outdated by more recent research, or controversial in the sense that there are alternative scholarly explanations. Wikipedia articles should point to all major scholarly interpretations of a topic.
- The material has been thoroughly vetted by the scholarly community. This means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals.
- Items that are recommended in scholarly bibliographies are preferred.
- Items that are signed are more reliable than unsigned articles because it tells whether an expert wrote it and took responsibility for it.
Extremist sources edit
Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist, whether of a political, religious or anti-religious, racist, or other nature, should be used only as sources about themselves and their activities in articles about themselves, and even then with caution.
Self-published sources edit
- Self-published sources raise reliability concerns. See the policy page Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources (online and paper).
Claims of consensus edit
Claims of consensus must be sourced. The claim that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source. Without it, opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources.
Questions about the reliability of specific sources edit
Are USENET postings reliable sources? edit
Posts on USENET are rarely regarded as reliable sources, because they are easily forged or misrepresented, and many are anonymous or pseudonymous.
One exception is that some authorities on certain topics have written extensively on USENET, and their writings there are vouched for by them or by other reliable sources. A canonical example is J. Michael Straczynski, the creator of the television series Babylon 5, who discussed the show at length on Usenet. His postings are archived and authenticated on his website, and may be an acceptable source on the topic of Babylon 5 under the self-publication provision of WP:ATT.
Are weblogs reliable sources? edit
In most cases, no. Most weblogs ("blogs"), especially those hosted by blog-hosting services such as Blogger, are self-published sources; many of them published pseudonymously. There is no fact-checking process and no guarantee of quality of reliability. Information from a blog may be usable in an article about that blog or blogger under the self-publication provision of the verifiability policy.
Weblog material written by well-known professional researchers writing within their field, or well-known professional journalists, may be acceptable, especially if hosted by a university or employer (a typical example is Language Log, which is already cited in several articles, e.g. Snowclone, Drudge Report). Usually, subject experts will publish in sources with greater levels of editorial control such as research journals, which should be preferred over blog entries if such sources are available.
Blogs must never be used as secondary sources on living persons; see WP:BLP.
Are web forums and blog talkbacks reliable sources? edit
Web forums and the talkback section of weblogs are rarely regarded as reliable. While they are often controlled by a single party (as opposed to the distributed nature of Usenet), many still permit anonymous commentary and we have no way of verifying the identity of a poster. Some however, are edited by reliable organizations, and therefore may possibly be justified as exceptions.
Are wikis reliable sources? edit
Wikis, including Wikipedia and other wikis sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation, are not regarded as reliable sources. However, wikis are excellent places to locate primary and secondary sources. Many of them license content under the GFDL, which might be worth importing into Wikipedia, but once imported, the material is subject to Wikipedia:Attribution and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
If circumstances require linking to a wiki page — for example, if the wiki itself is a notable project — it is best to use the permalink feature common on wiki software. Common wiki platforms, including the MediaWiki software which underlies Wikipedia, incorporate a feature allowing one to link directly to a version of a page as it existed some time in the past. To illustrate, this hyperlink points to revision 118386243 (dated 2007-03-28) of the article Encyclopedia, and will reference that individual revision indefinitely. When using the Cite Web template, specify both the date of the page revision you are citing and the date you retrieved that revision, as follows:
{{cite web
| url = http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Encyclopedia&oldid=118386243
| title = Encyclopedia
| accessdate = 2007-03-30
| author = Wikipedia contributors
| authorlink = Wikipedia community
| date = [[2007-03-28]]
| publisher = Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia
| language = English
}}
This example would render as follows:
- Wikipedia contributors (2007-03-28). "Encyclopedia". Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 2007-03-30.
{{cite web}}:|author=has generic name (help); Check date values in:|date=(help)
Are IRC, MySpace, and YouTube reliable sources? edit
- IRC: Transcripts of chatroom sessions are not reliable sources because they are unpublished, and we have no way of knowing who the authors are. Transcripts are also easily forged or altered.
- MySpace: MySpace is generally not acceptable even as a self-published source, because most of it is anonymous or pseudonymous. If the identity of the author can be confirmed in a reliable, published source, then it can be used with the caution appropriate to a self-published source.
- YouTube: YouTube and other video-sharing sites are not reliable sources because anyone can create or manipulate a video clip and upload without editorial oversight, just as with a self-published website. In some cases, video clips published on YouTube may be acceptable as primary sources if their authenticity can be confirmed, or as a secondary source if they can be traced to a reliable publisher, but even then should be used with caution. They may also be used as a convenience link for material originally published elsewhere, such as Wesley Autrey's appearance on David Letterman. Be careful not to link to material that is a copyright violation.
Ask questions about reliable sources edit
- See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for queries about the reliability of particular sources.
See also edit
References edit
- ^ The word "source," as used in Wikipedia, has three related meanings: the piece of work itself, the creator of the work, and the publisher of the work. All three affect reliability.
- ^ The word "source," as used in Wikipedia, has three related meanings: the piece of work itself, the creator of the work, and the publisher of the work. All three affect reliability.
- ^ Jimmy Wales about "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information" [1] [2] [3] [4]
External links edit
- How to Read a Primary Source, Reading, Writing, and Researching for History: A Guide for College Students, Patrick Rael, 2004.
- How to Read a Secondary Source, Reading, Writing, and Researching for History: A Guide for College Students, Patrick Rael, 2004.