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 17:19, 16 April 2007 view sourcePmanderson (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers62,752 edits →Claims of consensus: moved to WP:V← Previous edit Revision as of 19:42, 16 April 2007 view source Pmanderson (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers62,752 edits →Convenience links: link directly to same paragraphNext edit →
Line 48: Line 48:


==Convenience links== ==Convenience links==
:See ] :See ]


==Examples of statistics, subjects, and online sources== ==Examples of statistics, subjects, and online sources==

Revision as of 19:42, 16 April 2007


Misplaced Pages:Attribution was created to serve as a combination of Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, Misplaced Pages:No original research and Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources. It was believed that consensus for such a merger was reached, but that has been called into question. The long-term resolution of this issue is presently under discussion.
Blue tickThis page documents an English Misplaced Pages WP:RS.
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.

Misplaced Pages articles should be based on reliable, published sources. This page is a guideline, not a policy, and is mandatory only insofar as it repeats material from policy pages. The relevant policies on sources are Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, Misplaced Pages:No original research, and Misplaced Pages:Neutral point-of-view.

Misplaced Pages:Verifiability says that any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source, as do quotations, and the responsibility for finding a source lies with the person who adds or restores the material. Unsourced or poorly sourced edits may be challenged and removed at any time. Sometimes it is better to have no information at all than to have information without a source. See that page for more information about Misplaced Pages's policy on sourcing.

Why use reliable sources?

Sources are used:

  • To support an assertion made in an article. Sources used in this manner should be directly referenced for the point that is being supported.
  • To give credit to the source, to avoid the appearance of plagiarism or copyright violations. See Misplaced Pages:Copyrights.

Using reliable sources assures the reader that what is being presented meets the Misplaced Pages standards for verifiability, originality, and neutrality. Accurate citation allows the reader to go to those sources and gives appropriate credit to the author of the work.

Assessing the reliability of the sources used in an article allows the editor to caveat the statements made, identifying where weaknesses are present and where there may be alternative positions on a statement, with a qualitative opinion presented on the relative arguments based on the quality of sources.

If all the sources for a given statement or topic are of low reliability, this suggests to the reader that the content be treated with a degree of skepticism, and to the editor that the material may not be suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages.

Aspects of reliability

Scholary and non-scholarly sources

Misplaced Pages welcomes material written by scientists, scholars, and researchers, particularly material published by peer-reviewed journals. However, these may be outdated by more recent research, or may be controversial in the sense that there are alternative scholarly and non-scholarly treatments. Misplaced Pages articles should therefore ideally rely on all majority and significant-minority treatments of a topic, scholarly and non-scholarly, so long as the sources are reliable.

Exceptional claims require exceptional sources

Shortcut See also: Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories

Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim.

  • Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known.
  • Surprising or apparently important reports of recent events not covered by reputable news media.
  • Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended.
  • Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.

Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple credible and verifiable sources, especially with regard to historical events, politically-charged issues, and biographies of living people.

Types of source material

See No original research: Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources

Biographies of living persons

See Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons

Self-published sources (online and paper)

See Verifiability: Self-published sources (online and paper)



Convenience links

See Misplaced Pages:Convenience links#reliability

Examples of statistics, subjects, and online sources

See Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/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

References

External links

Category: