Wikipedia:Verifiability: Difference between revisions
SlimVirgin (talk | contribs) →Reliable sources: added some more subheads, tightened wordy section |
SlimVirgin (talk | contribs) tightened some wording, moved two sections lower |
||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
The word "source", as used in Wikipedia, has three meanings: the piece of work itself (a document, article, paper, or book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, ''The New York Times''). All three can affect reliability. |
The word "source", as used in Wikipedia, has three meanings: the piece of work itself (a document, article, paper, or book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, ''The New York Times''). All three can affect reliability. |
||
Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy |
Articles should be based on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; this avoids [[Wikipedia:plagiarism|plagiarism]], [[Wikipedia:Copyright violations|copyright violations]], and unverifiable claims being added to articles. Sources should directly support the material as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made. |
||
The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources |
The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources where available, such as in history, medicine, and science, but material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria. |
||
Self-published expert sources are regarded as reliable in limited circumstances (see [[#Self-published sources (online and paper)|below]]). All self-published sources, whether experts or not, are considered reliable ''as sources on themselves, especially in articles about themselves'', subject to certain criteria, though no article should be based primarily on such sources (see [[#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves|below]]). |
Self-published expert sources are regarded as reliable in limited circumstances (see [[#Self-published sources (online and paper)|below]]). All self-published sources, whether experts or not, are considered reliable ''as sources on themselves, especially in articles about themselves'', subject to certain criteria, though no article should be based primarily on such sources (see [[#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves|below]]). |
||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutrality policy]], fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in [[WP:UNDUE|rough proportion]] to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views need not be included, except in articles devoted to them. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text: "John Smith argues that X, while Paul Jones maintains that Y," followed by an [[Wikipedia:Citing sources#Inline citations|inline citation]]. |
||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | To discuss the reliability of specific sources, consult the [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard|reliable sources noticeboard]]. For a guideline discussing the reliability of particular ''types'' of sources, see [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources]], but note that in the case of inconsistency between this page and that one, this policy has priority. |
||
===Questionable sources=== |
===Questionable sources=== |
||
| Line 76: | Line 70: | ||
{{policy shortcut|WP:RSUE|WP:VUE|WP:NONENG}} |
{{policy shortcut|WP:RSUE|WP:VUE|WP:NONENG}} |
||
Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be used in preference to non-English ones, except where no English source of equal quality can be found that contains the relevant material. When '''quoting''' a source in a different language, provide both the original-language quotation and an English translation, in the text or in a footnote. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians. When '''citing''' a source in a different language, without quotations, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors: this can be added to a footnote, or to the talk page if too long for a footnote. If posting original source material, editors should be careful not to violate copyright; see the [[Wikipedia:Fair_use#Text|fair-use guideline]]. |
Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be used in preference to non-English ones, except where no English source of equal quality can be found that contains the relevant material. When '''quoting''' a source in a different language, provide both the original-language quotation and an English translation, in the text or in a footnote. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians. When '''citing''' a source in a different language, without quotations, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors: this can be added to a footnote, or to the talk page if too long for a footnote. If posting original source material, editors should be careful not to violate copyright; see the [[Wikipedia:Fair_use#Text|fair-use guideline]]. |
||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutrality policy]], fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in [[WP:UNDUE|rough proportion]] to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views need not be included, except in articles devoted to them. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text: "John Smith argues that X, while Paul Jones maintains that Y," followed by an [[Wikipedia:Citing sources#Inline citations|inline citation]]. |
||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | To discuss the reliability of specific sources, consult the [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard|reliable sources noticeboard]]. For a guideline discussing the reliability of particular ''types'' of sources, see [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources]], but note that in the case of inconsistency between this page and that one, this policy has priority. |
||
==Exceptional claims require exceptional sources== |
==Exceptional claims require exceptional sources== |
||
Revision as of 21:25, 9 April 2010
 |
 | This page in a nutshell: Any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. This applies to all articles, lists, and sections of articles, without exception. |
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source (see below), not whether editors think it is true.
All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source to show that it is not original research, but in practice not everything need actually be attributed. This policy requires that anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question. This is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, sections of articles, and captions—without exception, and in particular to material about living persons. Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed, and unsourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately.
Because this is the English-language Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred, although non-English sources are allowed.
Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies, along with No original research and Neutral point of view. Jointly, these determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore familiarize themselves with all three.
Burden of evidence
- For how to write citations, see Wikipedia:Citing sources
The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.[1] All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate, and must clearly support the material as presented in the article. Drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position is prohibited by the no original research policy.[2] If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.
Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed, but how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them. Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living persons or organizations, and do not move it to the talk page.[3]
If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider tagging a sentence with the {{citation needed}} template—write {{cn}} or {{fact}}. Other templates are available here for tagging sections or entire articles. Alternatively, leave a note on the talk page requesting a source, or move the material there. To request verification that a reference supports the text, tag it with {{verification needed}}. Material that fails verification may be tagged with {{failed verification}} or removed.
Sources
Reliable sources
The word "source", as used in Wikipedia, has three meanings: the piece of work itself (a document, article, paper, or book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times). All three can affect reliability.
Articles should be based on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; this avoids plagiarism, copyright violations, and unverifiable claims being added to articles. Sources should directly support the material as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made.
The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources where available, such as in history, medicine, and science, but material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria.
Self-published expert sources are regarded as reliable in limited circumstances (see below). All self-published sources, whether experts or not, are considered reliable as sources on themselves, especially in articles about themselves, subject to certain criteria, though no article should be based primarily on such sources (see below).
Questionable sources
Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves; see below for the restrictions on using self-published sources in this way. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable as a basis for citing contentious claims about third parties.
Self-published sources (online and paper)
Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets, etc., are largely not acceptable.[4]
Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.
Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources.
Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves
Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
- the material is not unduly self-serving;
- it does not involve claims about third parties;
- it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
- there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
- the article is not based primarily on such sources.
Wikipedia and sources that mirror or use it
Articles on Wikipedia, or on websites that mirror its content, should not be used as sources, because this would amount to self-reference. Similarly, editors should not use sources that present material originating from Wikipedia to support that same material in Wikipedia, as this would create circular sourcing—Wikipedia citing a source that derives its material from Wikipedia. Wikipedia may be cited with caution as a primary source of information on itself, such as in articles about itself.
Non-English sources
Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be used in preference to non-English ones, except where no English source of equal quality can be found that contains the relevant material. When quoting a source in a different language, provide both the original-language quotation and an English translation, in the text or in a footnote. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians. When citing a source in a different language, without quotations, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors: this can be added to a footnote, or to the talk page if too long for a footnote. If posting original source material, editors should be careful not to violate copyright; see the fair-use guideline.
Reliable sources and neutrality
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 need not be included, except in articles devoted to them. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text: "John Smith argues that X, while Paul Jones maintains that Y," followed by an inline citation.
Reliable sources noticeboard
To discuss the reliability of specific sources, consult the reliable sources noticeboard. For a guideline discussing the reliability of particular types of sources, see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, but note that in the case of inconsistency between this page and that one, this policy has priority.
Exceptional claims require exceptional sources
Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim:
- surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources;
- reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended;
- claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons. This is especially true when proponents consider that there is a conspiracy to silence them.
Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources.[5] If such sources are not available, the material should not be included. Also be sure to adhere to other policies, such as the policy for biographies of living persons and the undue weight provision of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
Access to sources
Verifiability, in this context, means that anyone should be able to check the sources to verify that material in a Wikipedia article has already been published by a reliable source, as required by this policy and by No original research. The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries. WikiProject Resource Exchange may be able to assist in obtaining copies/excerpts of sources that are not easily accessible.
See also
- Wikipedia:Core content policies, an essay with a summary of these policies and their brief history
- Wikipedia:List of free online resources
- Wikipedia:Fringe theories, a guideline
- Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles
- WikiProject Fact and Reference Check
- WikiProject Resource Exchange
- Wikipedia:When to cite, an essay
Notes
- ^ This is because it is generally much harder to prove that a statement cannot be sourced to the literature than to provide a citation to the source of the statement.
- ^ When there is dispute about whether a piece of text is fully supported by a given source, direct quotes and other relevant details from the source should be provided to other editors as a courtesy.
- ^ As Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales has put it: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons" (Jimmy Wales Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information, WikiEN-l, May 16, 2006, accessed June 11, 2006).
- ^ "Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. In March 2010, the Press Complaints Commission in the UK ruled that journalists' blogs hosted only on the websites of news organizations are subject to the same standards expected of that organization's print editions (see Plunkett, John. "Rod Liddle censured by the PCC", The Guardian, March 30, 2010). Where a news organization publishes an opinion piece but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g. "Jane Smith has suggested..."). Posts left by readers may never be used as sources.
- ^ This idea—that exceptional claims require exceptional sources—has an intellectual history which traces back through the Enlightenment. In 1758, David Hume wrote in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding: "No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish." [1]
Further reading
- Jimmy Wales. "WikiEN-l insist on sources", WikiEN-l mailing list, July 19, 2006.