Wikipedia talk:Verifiability

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Verifiability page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Shortcut

WT:V

This page is not a forum for general discussion about "verifiability" as a concept. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this page. You may wish to ask factual questions about "verifiability" as a concept at the Reference desk.

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

Questions

Where should I ask whether this source supports this statement in an article?: At Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Don't forget to tell the editors the full name of the source and the exact sentence it is supposed to support.
Do sources have to be free, online and/or conveniently available to me?: No. Sources can be expensive, print-only, or available only in certain places. A source does not stop being reliable simply because you personally aren't able to obtain a copy. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/cost. If you need help verifying that a source supports the material in the article, ask for help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange or a relevant WikiProject.
Do sources have to be in English?: No. Sources can be written in any language. However, if equally good sources in English exist, they will be more useful to our readers. If you need help verifying that a non-English source supports the material in the article, ask for help at Wikipedia:Translators available.
I personally know that this information is true. Isn't that good enough to include it?: No. Wikipedia includes only what is verifiable, not what someone believes is true. It must be possible to provide a bibliographic citation to a published reliable source that says this. Your personal knowledge or belief is not enough.
I personally know that this information is false. Isn't that good enough to remove it?: Your personal belief or knowledge that the information is false is not sufficient for removal of verifiable and well-sourced material.
Is personal communication from an expert a reliable source?: No. It is not good enough for you to talk to an expert in person or by telephone, or to have a written letter, e-mail message, or text message from a source. Reliable sources must be published.
Are there sources that are "always reliable" or sources that are "always unreliable"?: No. The reliability of a source is entirely dependent on the context of the situation, and the statement it is being used to support. Some sources are generally better than others, but reliability is always contextual.
What if the source is biased?: Sources are allowed to be biased or non-neutral; sometimes these are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a controversial subject. However, the resulting Wikipedia articles must maintain a neutral point of view.
Does every single sentence need to be followed by an inline citation?: No. Only four broad categories of material need to be supported by inline citations. Editors need not supply citations for perfectly obvious material. However, it must be possible to provide a bibliographic citation to a published reliable source for all material.
Are reliable sources required to name the author?: No. Many reliable sources, such as government and corporate websites, do not name their authors or say only that it was written by staff writers. Although many high-quality sources do name the author, this is not a requirement.
Are reliable sources required to provide a list of references?: No. Wikipedia editors should list any required sources in a references or notes section. However, the sources you are using to write the Wikipedia article do not need to provide a bibliography. Most reliable sources, such as newspaper and magazine articles, do not provide a bibliography.
Does anyone read the sources?: Readers do not use the reference list extensively. This research indicates that readers click somewhere in the list of references approximately three times out of every 1,000 page views.

The Verifiability page is frequently reverted in good faith. Don't be offended if your edit is reverted: try it on the Workshop page & offer it for consensus here, before editing the project page.

There has been much discussion about the lead section of this policy. To discuss changing it, please first read the 2012 request for comments and previous discussion about the first sentence. Thank you for your cooperation.

This policy has been mentioned by a media organization:

Jared Keller (13 February 2017). "How Wikipedia Is Cultivating an Army of Fact Checkers to Battle Fake News". Pacific Standard. Archived from the original on 17 February 2017. Retrieved 17 February 2017. Wikipedia has been combating misinformation by thoughtfully and purposefully iterating on strict guidelines of verifiability that Wikipedians [follow to] refine and enforce information transparently in open channels. {{cite news}}: External link in |quote= (help)

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81

Archives by topic

First sentence (Nov 2010–March 2011)
First sentence (April–August 2011)

2012 RfC about the lead section

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Request for comment on Wikipedia:Interviews

There is a request for comment on the Wikipedia:Interviews essay:

Should Wikipedia:Interviews be designated as an explanatory supplement?
Should Wikipedia:Interviews be linked from the verifiability policy?
Should Wikipedia:Interviews be linked from the no original research policy?
Should Wikipedia:Interviews be linked from the identifying reliable sources guideline?
Should Wikipedia:Interviews be linked from the notability guideline?

If you are interested, please participate at Wikipedia talk:Interviews#RfC: Explanatory supplement and links from policies and guidelines. Thanks. — Newslinger talk 18:43, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This request for comment has been withdrawn. Thank you for your feedback. — Newslinger talk 07:26, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme negative outliers

On WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:FRINGE, I don't see discussion of consequences of extreme negative outliers. (Think negative 'black swans'). Did I miss that?

What if 'mainstream' narrative is wrong and consequence of that error is enormous and negative? How does WP responsibly deal with that possibility? Humanengr (talk) 03:45, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We report such possibilities to the extent they have been discussed in reliable sources. We do not make our own assessments. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:49, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A black swan would — by definition — not be covered by RS; a grey swan would at best be given short shrift. Which brings us into a conundrum, given that the possibility of black swans and gray swans is RS.

WP policy as it stands stacks the deck irretrievably in denial, precluding mention of enormous negative consequences should the mainstream so-called 'reliable' narrative be mistaken. How can we best address that? Where should that discussion take place? Humanengr (talk) 04:10, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For proposing major changes in core Wikipedia policies, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) is probably the place to start. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:36, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Small technical change to wording

This page sometimes refers to "third-party" sources, but we actually mean "independent" sources. The difference can be illustrated in these examples:

Bob sues Alice. If Alice loses, Alice's insurance company will pay the resulting damages.
- Bob = first party, Alice = second party, Alice's insurance company = third party.
Chris, Joe and Paul are campaigning to win a political office. Paul Politician insults Joe. Chris is a "third party" – he did not attack anyone, and he was not attacked – but he stands to benefit from the situation.

We would not accept Alice's insurance company or Chris as a desirable source (for most general statements), because they're not the sort of disinterested, uninvolved ("independent") sources that we prefer, even though they're formally a "third party". I therefore think that this page will be clearer if we swap the wording to "independent sources" (at least for me and my fellow dictionary-reading pedants. ;-)

If there are no objections, then I'll make the change another day, or anyone who gets to it before I can is welcome to do so. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:44, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]