Misplaced Pages

:Reliable sources: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 11:24, 2 October 2008 view sourceVision Thing (talk | contribs)7,574 edits →Questionable sources: definition of questionable source here should be the same as the one in WP:V← Previous edit Revision as of 11:31, 2 October 2008 view source Vassyana (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users15,130 edits →Extremist and fringe sources: combine redundant paragraphs, no need to say the same thing twice, WP:BRD if neededNext edit →
Line 41: Line 41:
Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Questionable sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should not be used to support any contentious claims. Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Questionable sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should not be used to support any contentious claims.


Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged by reliable sources as ] should be used only as sources about themselves and '''in articles about themselves or their activities''', or where they are necessary to explain other groups or events; any information used must be directly relevant to the subject. The material taken from such sources should not be contentious, and it should not involve claims made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources. Articles should not be based primarily on such sources. Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged by reliable sources as fringe or ] should be used only as sources about themselves and '''in articles about themselves or their activities'''.<ref>Examples of such views include ] of ] and ]</ref> Any information used must be directly relevant to the subject. Articles should not be based primarily on such sources. Certain extremist and fringe sources may be entirely excluded if they are not representative of an ]. The material taken from such sources should not be contentious and must not involve claims made about third parties. Fringe and extremist sources must not be used to obscure or describe the mainstream view, nor used to indicate a fringe theory's level of acceptance.

Organizations and individuals that promote what are widely agreed to be fringe theories (that is, views held by a small minority, in direct contrast with the mainstream view in their field), such as ] of ] or ], should only be used as sources about themselves or, if correctly attributed as being such, to detail the views of the proponents of that subject. Use of these sources must not obfuscate the description of the mainstream view, nor should these fringe sources be used to describe the mainstream view or the level of acceptance of the fringe theory. When using such sources, reliable mainstream sources must be found in order to allow the dispute to be characterized fairly, presenting the mainstream view as the mainstream, and the fringe theory as a minority fringe view.

Certain extremist and fringe sources may be entirely excluded from Misplaced Pages if there is no independent acknowledgment that the sources in question are representative of an ].


==Reliability in specific contexts== ==Reliability in specific contexts==

Revision as of 11:31, 2 October 2008

Blue tickThis page documents an English Misplaced Pages content guideline.
Editors should generally follow it, though exceptions may apply. Substantive edits to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on this guideline's talk page.		Shortcuts
This page in a nutshell: Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
Misplaced Pages guidelines
Behavioral
Discussions
Content
Editing
Categorization
Style
Deletion
Project content
Other
Search

This is a guideline discussing the reliability of particular types of sources. The relevant policies on sources are Misplaced Pages:Verifiability and Misplaced Pages:No original research, and additional restrictions in biographies of living people. Misplaced Pages articles should cover all major and significant-minority views that have been published by reliable sources. See Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view.

Misplaced Pages articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made; if an article topic has no reliable sources, Misplaced Pages should not have an article on it. See Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for queries about the reliability of particular sources.

Overview

Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves. The following specific examples cover only some of the possible types of reliable sources and source reliability issues, and are not intended to be exhaustive. Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process.

Scholarship

Further information: Misplaced Pages:Verifiability § Reliable sources

Many Misplaced Pages articles rely on scholarly material. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, superseded by more recent research, in competition with alternate theories, or controversial within the relevant field. Reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly material from reputable mainstream publications. Misplaced Pages articles should cover all significant views, doing so in proportion to their published prominence among the most reliable sources. The choice of appropriate sources depends on context and information should be clearly attributed where there are conflicting sources.

  • Material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable; this means published in reputable peer-reviewed sources and/or by well-regarded academic presses.
  • Items that are signed are preferable to unsigned articles.
  • The scholarly acceptance of a source can be verified by confirming that the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the number of scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes.
  • Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Studies relating to complex and abstruse fields, such as medicine, are less definitive. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields. Meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred to provide proper context, where available.

News organizations

Further information: Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons, and Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles)

Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, such as The Washington Post, The Times in Britain, and The Associated Press. Some caveats:

  • News reporting is distinct from opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact, and should be attributed in-text. In articles about living persons, only material from high-quality news organizations should be used.
  • While the reporting of rumors has a news value, Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia and should only include information verified by reliable sources. Misplaced Pages is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors.
  • For information about academic topics, such as physics or ancient history, scholarly sources are preferred over news stories. Newspapers tend to misrepresent results, leaving out crucial details and reporting discoveries out of context. For example, news reports often fail to adequately report methodology, errors, risks, and costs associated with a new scientific result or medical treatment.

Self-published sources

Main page: Misplaced Pages:Verifiability § Self-published sources

Self-published sources may be used only in very limited circumstances and even then only with caution. If the information is worth reporting, an independent source is likely to have done so.

Extremist and fringe sources

Main page: Misplaced Pages:Verifiability § Questionable sources Further information: Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Questionable sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should not be used to support any contentious claims.

Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged by reliable sources as fringe or extremist should be used only as sources about themselves and in articles about themselves or their activities. Any information used must be directly relevant to the subject. Articles should not be based primarily on such sources. Certain extremist and fringe sources may be entirely excluded if they are not representative of an opinion prominent enough for inclusion. The material taken from such sources should not be contentious and must not involve claims made about third parties. Fringe and extremist sources must not be used to obscure or describe the mainstream view, nor used to indicate a fringe theory's level of acceptance.

Reliability in specific contexts

Biographies of living persons

Main page: Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons § Sources

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 is 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 article space.

Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources

Main page: Misplaced Pages:No original research § Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources

Primary sources can be reliable in some situations, but not in others. Whenever they are used, they must be used with extreme caution in order to avoid Original Research. Primary sources are considered reliable for basic statements of fact as to what is contained within the primary source itself (for example, a work of fiction is considered a reliable source for a summary of the plot of that work of fiction). Primary sources are not considered reliable for statements of interpretation, analysis or conclusion (for example, a work of fiction is not a reliable source for an anayisis of the characters in the work of fiction). For such statements, we must cite reliable secondary sources.

Misplaced Pages articles should primarily rely on reliable Secondary sources. This means that while primary or tertiary sources can be used to support specific statements, the bulk of the article should rely on secondary sources.

Tertiary sources such as compendiums, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion.

Consensus

The existence of a consensus within an academic community may be indicated, for example, by independent secondary or tertiary sources that come to the same conclusion. The statement 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. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material.

Usage by other sources

How accepted, high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence. For example, widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, while widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it. If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not represent unduly contentious or minority claims. The goal is to reflect established views of sources as far as we can determine them.

Other examples

See Misplaced Pages:Reliable source examples for examples of the use of statistical data, advice by subject area (including history, physical sciences, mathematics and medicine, law, business and commerce, popular culture and fiction), and the use of electronic or online sources.

See also

External links

  1. Examples of such views include certain forms of revisionist history and pseudoscience
Category: