Wikipedia:Attribution

The following is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption.

Shortcut

[[:|WP:ATT
WP:ATTRIBUTE
WP:SOURCE]]

This page in a nutshell: All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Unsourced or poorly sourced material may be challenged or removed.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a publisher of original thought. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reputable published source, not whether it is true. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments.

Although everything in Wikipedia must be attributable, in practice not all material is attributed. Editors should provide attribution for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material.

Wikipedia:Attribution is one of Wikipedia's two core content policies. The other is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles; that is, content on Wikipedia must be both attributable and written from a neutral point of view. Because the policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another. For examples and explanations that illustrate key aspects of this policy, see Wikipedia:Attribution/FAQ.

Key principles

Wikipedia does not publish original research: Original research refers to material that is not attributable to a reliable, published source. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, ideas, statements, and neologisms; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position. Material added to articles must be directly and explicitly supported by the cited sources.

Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable 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. In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published by universities; mainstream newspapers; and magazines and journals that are published by known publishing houses. What these have in common is process and approval between document creation and publication. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analysing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Material that is self-published is generally not regarded as reliable, but see below for exceptions. Any unsourced material may be removed, and in biographies of living persons unsourced contentious material must be removed immediately.

No original research

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. Note the difference between unsourced material and original research:

Unsourced material is material not yet attributed to a reliable source.
Original research is material that cannot be attributed to a reliable source.

Unpublished synthesis of published material

Material can often be put together in a way that constitutes original research even if its constituent parts have been published by reliable sources. This includes analyzing sources in a way that produces a new idea or argument. Even if A and B are published by reliable sources, it is inappropriate to combine A and B to conclude a new position C. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable if and only if a reliable source has published that precise argument in relation to the topic of the article. See the FAQ page for an example.

What is not original research

Editors may make straightforward mathematical calculations or logical deductions based on fully attributed data that neither change the significance of the data nor require additional assumptions beyond what is in the source. It should be possible for any reader without specialist knowledge to understand the deductions. For example, if a published source gives the numbers of votes cast in an election, it is not original research to calculate a percentage, so long as it is a simple calculation and the original numbers the source offers accompany it. Deductions of this nature should not be made if they serve to advance a position, or if they are based on source material published about a topic other than the one at hand.

Reliable sources

Primary and secondary sources

Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge.: Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation you are writing about. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident and the White House's summary of a president's speech are primary sources. Primary source material that has been published by a reliable source may be used for the purposes of attribution in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse primary sources. The Bible cannot be used as a source for the claim that Jesus advocated eye removal (Matthew 18:9, Mark 9:47) and castration (Matthew 19:12) for his followers, because theologians differ as to how these passages should be interpreted. Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge.

Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible.: Secondary sources are documents or people that summarize other material, usually primary source material. They are academics, journalists, and other researchers, and the papers and books they produce. A journalist's analysis of a traffic accident, or the analysis and commentary of a president's speech, are secondary sources. Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible. This means that, as a rule, we publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves.

Questionable or self-published sources

Some sources pose special difficulties:

A questionable source is one with no editorial oversight or fact-checking process, or with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as fringe or extremist; are promotional in nature; or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should not be used, except in articles about themselves or their activities.

A self-published source is material that has been published by the author, or whose publisher is a vanity press, a web hosting service, or other organization that provides little or no editorial oversight. Personal websites and messages on USENET and Internet bulletin boards are considered self-published. With self-published sources, no one stands between the author and publication; the material may not be subject to any form of fact-checking, legal scrutiny, or peer review. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published material is largely not acceptable.

There are three exceptions:

1. Questionable or self-published sources in articles related to their authors

Material from questionable or self-published sources must be relevant to the article's subject, whose notability must be established with information from third-party sources, and must be in a field in which the author is considered authoritative — for example, it is usually acceptable to use biographical details from a self-published source. The material:

should not be contentious or unduly self-serving;
must not be used to support claims about topics not directly related to the source or about third parties.

2. Professional self-published sources: When a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, produces self-published material, we can rely on it if material produced by that writer would normally be regarded as a reliable source. However, exercise caution: there may be a good reason no reliable third party has published the material. If there is reasonable doubt about the reliability of a self-published source, or the relevance of the material to the subject matter, don't use it. In particular, self-published sources should hardly ever be used to argue against or contradict information from well-established peer-reviewed academic journals or publishers, but used only when no such information is available. For examples of rare exceptions, see Wikipedia:Attribution/FAQ#What if a self-published source disagrees with a source from a reliable publisher?.

3. Where professional sources offer shallow coverage: In rare cases, the best source for a particular article may be one that this policy would not recommend; for example, a self-published non-professional source or one that might otherwise be regarded as "questionable." Editors are likely to encounter these exceptions in areas where professional sources offer shallow coverage. In these cases, if there is consensus that the source can be trusted and there are no reasonable objections, it may be used. This exception never applies in the areas of history, politics, current affairs, science, religion, or other academic disciplines, nor to support fringe theories or marginal positions in any area, neither to support claims about living persons.

Citing yourself

.

You may cite your own publications just as you'd cite anyone else's, but make sure your material is relevant and that you're regarded as a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia. Be cautious about excessive citation of your own work, which may be seen as promotional or a conflict of interest; when in doubt, check on the talk page.

Language

English-language sources should be used whenever possible, because this is the English Wikipedia. Sources in other languages are acceptable when there are no English equivalents. Published translations are preferred to editors' translations; when editors use their own translations, the original-language material should be provided too, perhaps in a footnote, so that readers can check the translation for themselves.

How to cite and request a source

Further information and examples: Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Citations quick reference

Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be accompanied by a clear and precise citation; for articles with several sources, this will usually require an inline citation, written as a footnote, Harvard reference, or embedded link.

If you encounter a statement that lacks proper attribution, then first and foremost, why don't you try to find a reliable source for it. If unable to do so, you may decide on the appropriate action using the following guidelines:

If you think a relatively harmless statement or some simple fact needs attribution, you can tag it with the {{fact}} template.
If you doubt the validity of a more serious statement, but don't find the material too offensive or controversial, you may consider creating a new section in the talk page where you present your objections. Then, use the template {{dubious|section in talk page}} to tag the doubtful information in the article and direct readers to the discussion. This is also useful, if you are uncertain about the interpretation or synthesis of the given sources.
If you doubt the validity of a statement, and consider it too harmful to keep in the article, consider moving it to the talk page for discussion.
If you are almost certain something is wrong, delete it from the article and request attribution in your edit summary.

If an article or section contains more than a few unattributed statements, please tag the whole article or the section with the {{not verified}} template. Absurd claims and original research should be removed rather than tagged; contentious claims about living persons must be removed immediately.

Living persons

Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons, for legal reasons and in order to be fair. Remove unattributed, 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 in any article, talk or user page, or project page.

Sources and notes